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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 25 November 2016 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2EC1298CC for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:30:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joW3pfblzPzE for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33B501298C7 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9033300AEC for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:19:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id S3tV6FMIpYPP for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:19:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net []) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC0A4300267; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:19:50 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <EE7359A5-ACD3-4CD1-B1B0-E01579203FFE@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:30:30 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <4290FCC3-4840-4F17-9B9B-8889329B2C19@vigilsec.com>
References: <EE7359A5-ACD3-4CD1-B1B0-E01579203FFE@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp.all@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/awBBKnV_cvwo0CKoAdJga_gQ17U>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [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: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:30:11 -0000

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

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.

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