[AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 21 February 2011 21:07 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF783A7132 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:07:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e0QvXxvseVPq for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:07:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (shaman.nostrum.com [72.232.179.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778FC3A70F9 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:07:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dn3-177.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1LL6sl0006054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:07:03 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-70-40148848"
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:06:52 -0600
References: <50196776-A554-45C7-9E40-E44008E99D0E@nostrum.com>
To: IETF AVTCORE WG <avt@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <410D19DE-D1DF-4340-9503-1FD071F99ACC@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:07:40 -0000
Summary: Ready, but with minor concerns. I've requested IETF LC - please treat these as IETF LC comments 1) Section 3.2: "That is, clients MUST NOT implement this specification with only a specific use case in mind" is not testable. I suggest either removing the sentence or replacing it with something that is more of an observation of the consequences of improperly implementing the MUST in the preceeding sentence 2) Consider replacing "guaranteed to be temporally and globally unique" in section 4.1 with "extremely unlikely to collide with other clients sharing the same IP address", pointing again to 4086 for implementation guidance. 3) In section 4.3.1, "might also need to be authenticated" could be more assertive. Are you trying to primarily influence implementers or application designers here? 4) In the final paragraph of Section 5, "and implementations might need to handle this eventually" is not that useful. Please consider deleting the phrase, or providing a concrete recommendation. 5) The end of Section 6 could be read to say that receiving a token verification failure message is part of the normal path for discovering that a session description change has occurred. Was the intent here to note that a _very_ recent change may have occurred and that an implementation should take care to avoid scheduling retries when that happens? If so, could this be rewritten to look less like it is encouraging implementations to rely on Token Verification Failures to notice that a session description has changed? Finally, it would help if this short description of retries could point to where the limit on the number of retries is defined. 6) (Nit) Section 7.1.1 "The 'portmapping-req' attribute SHALL be used as a media-level attribute" is slightly off target. It says that the attribute SHALL be used. The intent, I think, is that if it is used, it is used only at the media-level. I suggest adding the word "only" at "SHALL only be used". 7) To avoid confusion, consider saying "sub-registry of the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Parameters registr for the sub-message type"... 8) The way Section 3.2's item 5 is currently written, [I-D.ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive] looks like it should be a normative reference. If you intend for implementers to follow the guidance in that draft, please move the reference to normative and strengthen the text. If that's not the intent, adjust the text to make it clear that you are referring people to that draft for more information about the problem.
- [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-m… Robert Sparks
- Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-uca… Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-uca… Robert Sparks
- Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-uca… Ali C. Begen (abegen)