[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp-15
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 21:46 UTC
Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.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 6E6F711E82E3 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8PHh3mCZaQkP for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12DC11E82D9 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9VLjjOG015043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:45:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9VLjjss010291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:45:45 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p9VLjif4015132; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:45:45 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4EAF17BC.6020409@bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:48:44 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12
Cc: fandreas@cisco.com, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp-15
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:46:32 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp-15 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Oct-31-2011 IETF LC End Date: Unknown IESG Telechat date: Nov-03-2011 Summary: This draft is ready as a Proposed Standard. Major issues: 0 Minor issues: 2 Nits/editorial comments: 2 Minor issues: - S1: The draft says, "This specification does so by following the outline of ICE itself, and calling out the additions and changes necessary in each section of ICE to support TCP candidates." Does this imply that this specification normatively updates rfc5425 (the ICE RFC)? If so, this is not reflected in the masthead for the document as "Updates: RFC 5425". - S4.1, last paragraph. It says that, "TCP-based STUN transactions are paced out at one every Ta seconds." However, rfc5245 Section 16 says that, "These transactions are paced at a rate of one every Ta millisecond, ..." I suspect that in your draft, Ta refers to the same Ta as in rfc5245, so it seems to me that they should be paced one every Ta milliseconds to conform to rfc5245, no? Nits: - S3, in the sentence, "Stream-oriented transports introduce another wrinkle, since they require a way to frame the connection so that the application and STUN packets can be extracted in order to determine which is which." s/which is which/STUN packets from application layer traffic/ - S4.1, s/any assumptions that they make about deployments/any assumptions made about deployments/ Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mmusic… Ari Keränen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mmusic… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mmusic… Ari Keränen