Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08

["Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the review. Please see inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:58 AM
> To: Review Area [e-mail] Team <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; IETF discussion list
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08
> 
> 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> comments you may receive.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08
> Reviewer: Ralph Droms
> Review Date: 2016-08-09
> IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-11
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review.
> 
> The draft is well-written and appears to be ready for publication, except as
> noted below.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Section 5, DNS Service Discovery, includes more details about DNS Service
> Discovery (DNS-SD) than is necessary for this specification.
> While it can be useful to repeat some specific details of another specification
> for, there is a danger in writing too many details that may not be entirely in
> agreement with the published specification.  In the case of this document, I
> suggest that section 5 be rewritten to just refer to DNS Service discovery, with
> a minimum of explanation.
> The example is useful ... although I think some of the details in the example
> ought to be changed.  The use of DNS-SD over unicast DNS and multicast DNS
> can be mentioned in a sentence somewhere in section 5, as the use of DNS-SD
> is otherwise identical.  I would leave out section 5.1 altogether.
> 
> Looking at the IANA "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
> Registry"
> <www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-
> port-numbers.xhtml>,
> I see that TURN is registered as using service name "turn", rather than
> "turnserver" as in the example.  Also in the example, the instance name
> "example.com" might be problematic, as the instance is usually just a single
> label.  In fact, I interpret the text in the document to describe the instance
> name as a single label.  It might be worth experimenting to see how DNS-SD
> libraries deal with a label like "example.com", or perhaps simply change
> instance in the example to something like "exampleco TURN Server"

Changed to "exampleco TURN Server" and used service names "turn" and "turns".

> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Section 5 mentions the use of a TXT record to carry additional information
> about the TURN service instance.  Are there any conventions for the
> name/value pairs carried in the TXT record? 

No conventions.

>  If not, I think there should be a
> note that any name/value pairs in the TXT record are left to local definition.

Okay, added following line:
The TXT record can contain any key/value pairs left to the local definition.

> 
> Editorial issues:
> 
> I suggest using the example.com domain rather than local in the example for
> clarity.  Perhaps also change the intro sentence for the example:
> 
> OLD:
>  For example, TURN server advertises the following DNS records :
> NEW:
>  For example, the following DNS records would be used for a TURN server with
> instance name "exampleco TURN Server" providing TURN service over UDP on
> port 5030:

Updated.

> 
> 
> It would help readability if the columns in the DNS records in the example
> could be lined up; something like (apologies if your mail reader changes the
> column alignments and if I don't have the quoting right):
> 
> _turnserver._udp.local.
> PTR	"exampleco TURN Server"._turn._udp.local.
> 
> "exampleco TURN Server"._turn._udp.local.
> SRV	0 0 5030 example-turn-server.local.
> 
> example-turn-server.local.
> A	198.51.100.2
> 
> example-turn-server.local.
> AAAA	2001:db8:8:4::2
> 
> Similarly, it would help readability if the list of DNS records for S-NAPTR
> resolution were formatted in aligned columns.

Fixed.

> 
> In section 3, does "on top of" mean "in addition to" or "instead of"?

It means "in addition to".

-Tiru