[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 03 October 2016 19:27 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0836A1294D7 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 Js4vcghWR3gf for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE5411294D4 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FBE300A3F for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:27:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 8zEIHnLG2Jow for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E26533005A8; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
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: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:26:30 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1EC0E6E8-02F1-4CB8-88B0-2A399FC61E30@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/lZP6PoEVBKefpHnXXCrDDapPW_g>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13
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: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 19:27:49 -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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.

Document: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2016-10-03
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-10
IESG Telechat date: unknown

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:

   ... It SHOULD NOT, though, forward SDP
   attributes that may lead to call failures (e.g., candidates,
   fingerprints, crypto, etc.) for different reasons out of scope to
   this document. ...

This SHOULD NOT statement if a bit vague.  The previous sentence lists
specific attributes, and I see why that might be difficult to match
here, but it does not tell an implementer what attributes to not
forward.