Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-07.txt

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 02 April 2012 09:00 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 52A8421F88B8 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 02:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 UrlQhmUzVSRs for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 02:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D5021F889F for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 02:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7b76ae0000063d8-b4-4f796aa649a4
Authentication-Results: mailgw1.ericsson.se x-tls.subject="/CN=esessmw0247"; auth=fail (cipher=AES128-SHA)
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client CN "esessmw0247", Issuer "esessmw0247" (not verified)) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 91.26.25560.6AA697F4; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 11:00:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 11:00:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4F796A9C.4000800@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:00:12 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
References: <4F7798E9.2060806@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F7798E9.2060806@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-07.txt
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, 02 Apr 2012 09:00:25 -0000

On 2012-04-01 01:53, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
> draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-07.txt
> 
> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard, but I
> have a minor concern that you may like to address.
> 
> Minor
> =====
> 
> * The document uses some addresses in the RFC1918 range as example
> addresses. It would be better to use addresses explicitly reserved for
> documentation (The document does indeed use these addresses as well).
> Specifically I would recommend replacing the RFC1918 address 10.0.1.4
> with an address in the 203.0.113.0/24 range from RFC5735.
> 

Thanks for the review.

I am very well aware of that I am using an none documentation range. The
point of the example is that it is an ICE and ECN SDP signalling
example. When using ICE (RFC5245) it is likely that an end-point will
have an private range address, either in the 10.0.0.0/8 or
192.168.0.0/16 address in their candidate lists. Thus to keep the
example correct considering that the SDP represents a client attached to
a NATed network and have multiple candidates I do need to use a private
range address in this example or it would not make sense.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------