[AVTCORE] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14

Jürgen Schönwälder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 27 April 2021 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietf.org
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2973A0C40; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 03:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?J=C3=BCrgen_Sch=C3=B6nw=C3=A4lder_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: avt@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <161951914802.5120.8507635650494768525@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: =?utf-8?b?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVy?= <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 03:25:48 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/yGFPkPVtncz4n978iqaKKxZGihg>
Subject: [AVTCORE] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party-rtt-mix-14
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:25:48 -0000

Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder
Review result: Has Nits

I am by no means an expert in this area so please take this into
account while reading my comments...

Content comments:

* The document assumes "human" communication, i.e., where text
  originates at a speed of a human and politeness is used to resolve
  concurrency conflicts. This seems to be a fair assumption for the
  considered use cases but what happens if this assumption is not met?
  Can systems or RTP mixers detect and handle such situations
  gracefully or is the idea that any resulting "jerkiness" must be
  accepted if senders misbehave?

* The solution does not provide end-to-end security since the mixer
  must be trusted to have access to the texts in order do the mixing.
  This is mentioned in the security considerations and in section 2
  where alternatives are considered. The reason to not select a
  solution providing end-to-end security is give in section 1.2. Is
  there work planned to address this issue, i.e., to complement this
  solution with a solution providing end-to-end security?

* Perhaps the recommendation in section 4.2.6 that the mixing method
  for multi-party unaware endpoints is not RECOMMENDED to be used
  should be repeated in the security considerations? It seems there
  are serious limitations, in particular also related to the creation
  of a presentation that can make it impossible to detect masquerade
  attacks. Yes, masquerading is mentioned but from an outside security
  point of view it feels like there was a strong security solution
  that was discarded due to lack of implementation support, there is a
  somewhat OK solution (but not able to provide end-to-end security),
  and there is a pretty ugly solution to accommodate endpoints with no
  support for the other solution. If this is a fair summary, perhaps
  explaining this clearly in the security considerations would be a
  good thing.

* I am confused about Figures 5 and 6 since the mixed identities of
  the sources are once shown in square brackets and once in
  parenthesis. Are labels like [Alice] or [Bob] not inserted by the
  mixer? If so, why would the format on the endpoint be different? Is
  the idea that endpoints try to parse the mixed text in order to
  render it differently? Or was the idea to show that different mixers
  can use different styles to generate labels, i.e., I should not
  really compare Figure 5 and 6?

Editorial comments:

* I suggest to cite [T140] when you first refer to it in the
  Introduction:

  OLD

   A requirement related to multi-party sessions from the presentation
   level standard T.140 for real-time text is: "The display of text from

  NEW

   A requirement related to multi-party sessions from the presentation
   level standard T.140 [T140] for real-time text is: "The display of text from

* as defined -> are defined and missing full stop

  OLD

   The terms SDES, CNAME, NAME, SSRC, CSRC, CSRC list, CC, RTCP, RTP-
   mixer, RTP-translator as defined in [RFC3550]

  NEW

   The terms SDES, CNAME, NAME, SSRC, CSRC, CSRC list, CC, RTCP, RTP-
   mixer, RTP-translator are defined in [RFC3550].

* Add reference(s) to WebRTC in the terminology section?