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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Magnus,

On 04/02/2012 05:00 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> 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.

That makes sense. Too bad there is no documentation addresses set aside
for denoting private space.

Cheers
Suresh