[AVTCORE] AD review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 08 April 2021 04:45 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C653A392C for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id atu6llGB-IBB for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x932.google.com (mail-ua1-x932.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::932]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A88D53A3919 for <avtcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x932.google.com with SMTP id b7so303354uam.10 for <avtcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 21:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/ru+1JbJiTB+GUv+Rr+UN0BTZ4FM1EM/veEcrMqUrZM=; b=pWEVKsULkUIZ1Lbz/KWmX/dFgr+LkdQ456htZwNEjV5wvuGcYOhYpJHz+5GvnsPDs/ sQueYxL4xWO19fEraYAQqM1pLNTmhXXGllQU6Zq/xGU8vnRwW16j4FZ4WSv0tExwvzKT UoXe7J0bevffaTF6TRWPVq2dXXgeQbR7q+DEGO3rTcl0BJGSg2po7faWYmYzl2O1uDu9 DCCQnhFRiRhW54GEuvMH0lgGyZ2luoqDOdoOUuN0NIErd46GASpq99loLFdZ4x/t2v03 IhndKI8xhgkjerG1J8gLXCr5k7zC6EZvKN/4WMttvHNoSN0ukeHYBV10IyTVeAu1o4Kp XoAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/ru+1JbJiTB+GUv+Rr+UN0BTZ4FM1EM/veEcrMqUrZM=; b=giQ+WhLk0c5kGy2+ZTJtteRbmplbtmkSWhHhqtRkp1bOL8FUe7V8cO7Nfvrwlr4cEP z35bw6MOEZ+Ya16YsF7eZdNIC9Kf0aTf2o0fAupqwXIfkZmEfXsHkbYlbZVis70PAFQD jovb1zz3gpbzD+hfPyI+FkoOusQ9JEPtn422459vDr+nNntoit9xGM4H/tHHOhDAtAT0 /l+mG1MeHSAW6gGYkkwe4YQgkwUU4WJtUpLyDlXRw1tXWbqifLuOIGFYanIVFbs5nmdq 3SSYGDAaG+AyEUA8IMrbwcbb6Byk83uHwa2aj5Hy628NkL4sJ+LfY9nHvAdBxgugzlxj rQug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WxI9VwpMeF35K/AePOtiFS/DwdiiQgT7en15YYzK4R9WJTN9v 1bYzGmYMeoNRF0s8HhCyWr5LkKccrLi41U0O68yMjkDfTPY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyjuYa6uUXEwBdlFfGQ+32ntm2CD1G4ETLhROSu4ACy4vtG5z4KvHcoAOwW9ZjgpqO5UWAVMkl0pRB8MOwXhg=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:44c3:: with SMTP id n61mr4397346uan.47.1617857119822; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 21:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:45:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYOyn6x4Q3od0efGXvFoBjbvpBQsTbB==cUfyi9Ge-vPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: avtcore@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eca76e05bf6eb661"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/moiGo99lbNXZ-xPTop27Qq7gSiA>
Subject: [AVTCORE] AD review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 04:45:29 -0000

Hello friends, sorry for the delay getting this review done.

I think this is generally in good shape, though I admit my understanding of
WebRTC isn't as strong as I'd like.  My review is therefore mostly about
form rather than substance.

At any rate, I have the following comments to offer after a first review.
Please let me know what you think.

--

The Abstract is unusually long.  I would suggest reducing it to a paragraph
or two, or maybe three.  My lay opinion is that the first two paragraphs
could be left for the Introduction section, but other approaches are also
probably available.

In many places, references look odd (e.g., "RFC3550[RFC3550]").  This may
be an artifact of the way the XML generates the text or HTML forms but it
might be worth a quick review to get it to look right.

In Section 1.1, please use the new BCP 14 boilerplate (combining RFC 2119
and RFC 8174).  Also in that section, "as defined in" should be "are
defined in".

In Section 1.3, "where a calltaker want to take" should use "wants" instead
of "want".

Is the "SHOULD" in Section 2.2 a piece of interoperability advice, or is it
advice about presentation?

In Sections 2.4, 3.20, and 7, in multiple places, "sdp" should be in all
caps.

In Section 3.2, remove "being".

Section 3.4 has a bunch of "SHOULD" and "RECOMMENDED" that are not
explained.  See comment below about Section 8 for my thinking here.  This
continues throughout the rest of Section 3's subsections and much of
Section 4.

In Section 3.20, "this sections shows" should be "this section shows".

In Section 4.2.6, "these facts makes" should be "these facts make".

Section 8 has a bare "SHOULD", by which I mean advice is given with no
context.  "SHOULD" and "RECOMMENDED" present a choice; why might an
implementer legitimately decide not to follow this advice?  If there's no
good reason, should these be "SHALL"/"MUST" instead?

Section 11, second paragraph: "restricted of privacy reasons" should
probably be "restricted for privacy reasons".

Section 11, third paragraph: "masquerading" should be "masquerade".

Section 11 should also probably refer to Section 3.19.

Commonly, a "Changes" section (Section 12 here) is marked with a note like:

    [RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.]

(At least I presume that's the intent for this section as well.)

-MSK