Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Tue, 29 November 2016 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743E2129B59 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:48:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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=aruba.it
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 iYIx7J0g0oEu for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpcmd0986.aruba.it (smtpcmd0986.aruba.it [62.149.156.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3AF11299BB for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:43:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lminiero.lan ([93.44.46.109]) by smtpcmd09.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id Dnj51u01F2MLHNd01nj6L2; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:43:06 +0100
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:43:05 +0100
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-ID: <20161129124305.5dd5fc85@lminiero.lan>
In-Reply-To: <4290FCC3-4840-4F17-9B9B-8889329B2C19@vigilsec.com>
References: <EE7359A5-ACD3-4CD1-B1B0-E01579203FFE@gmail.com> <4290FCC3-4840-4F17-9B9B-8889329B2C19@vigilsec.com>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.29; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aruba.it; s=a1; t=1480419786; bh=0XJadYDi8hJTxn+a4UBYOFeD9yrN1VvFd5+lAx0UrdE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WToIfP5jM+BIK6QDtAI1zf8/qXzPZ1887bGwztOg0G12oOJdUVv6tFxZ+KeZD7h6s LYWvPBVvYOr9onduRfW3SJUt+fmgI/KGaXui67V87m2G0BO96pzCe8LK0gzJIuvvQq c03HlKbhNdZ6fUjgnqGwh61Zf1BtOjahr/nInLnQoEvvGPXAeBVVNViXpQoFXGtlJF 647kkP02kzvLA6pj0Vr7H/7G0DPAE1l/fcp2LgEtqy7osa5jU9QhVIzp4lrRyow059 5sarg0jHaTZ3nSDJAMv7Om0N0qJmqyyrx69DUUnlQQyppYYtrX04bL+hdYFgI4fpK/ kyzT3pGsJNyQQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-BIZs-jFYfNpz893BT01HBJjF0E>
Cc: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp.all@ietf.org, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:48:25 -0000

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:30:30 -0500
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>; wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.
> 


Hi Russ,

thanks for this new review!


> Document: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2016-11-25
> IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-10
> IESG Telechat date: 2016-12-01
> 
> Summary: Almost Ready
> 
> 
> Major Concerns
> 
> I wonder if this ought to be a standards-track document.
> I recognize that the STRAW WG charter calls for a standards-track
> document, but it only contains a handfull of MUST statements that are
> not repeats from another RFC.  Maybe this document should become a
> Best Current Practice (BCP) instead of a standards-track document.
> 


We actually discussed this in your previous review as well. I can't
find the final points or decision on this in that discussion, but I
explained there how the WG came to the conclusion it was ok for this to
be standards track. You can find the related WG discussion here:

    https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00579.html 

which lead to no objection to keep the document's scope as it is. Not
sure how we should proceed on this at this point: I still believe a
standards-track document is more appropriate.


> 
> Minor Concerns
> 
> In Section 3.1, it says:
> 
>    ...  However, certain SDP attributes may
>    lead to call failures when forwarded by a media relay.  Such
>    attributes SHOULD NOT be forwarded.  One notable example is the
>    'rtcp' [RFC3605] attribute, that UAC may make use of to explicitly
>    state the port they're willing to use for RTCP.  ...
> 
> This SHOULD NOT statement is vague.  One example of an attribute that
> should not be forwarded is given, and the previous sentence provides
> some specific attributes that should be forwarded.  While I see why it
> is difficult to not be vague, some better advice to the implementer
> could be very helpful
> 


This point was also addressed in your original review, and I tried to
fix it and make it clearer with this text change here:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15.txt

Do you believe it's still ambiguous as it is? Do you have any
suggestion on how to improve the text and fix this? Maybe mentioning a
couple of attributes we talk about subsequently with something like
"Other examples are attributes like X and Y, for reasons that will
become clearer in latter sections"?

Thanks!
Lorenzo