Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-stun-origin-05

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your review, David. I am trying to determine
how to deal with this draft in the upcoming IESG telechat.
Has there been any discussion of the issue you raise?
Do the authors have a response?

Jari

On 21 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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-tram-stun-origin-05
> Reviewer: David L. Black
> Review Date: March 20, 2015
> IETF LC End Date: March 17, 2015
> 
> Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues
> 		described in the review.
> 
> This draft describes the addition of a web origin attribute to STUN and
> usage of that attribute in several protocol contexts.  The draft is well-
> written and easy to read.  I found one minor issue which may be editorial.
> 
> Major issues: None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Section 2.7 discusses use of multiple STUN origins with Web RTC and
> concludes by imposing a "MUST" requirement on use of multiple STUN
> origins with HTTP in general (use first origin, ignore others).  While
> Web RTC may be the predominant or only current use of STUN and TURN with
> HTTP, this "MUST" could foreclose the use of STUN origins with other
> uses of HTTP.  I'm not sure what those possible future uses might be,
> but at a minimum this draft ought to more tightly scope its discussion
> of use of STUN origins with HTTP to limit that usage to Web RTC.  If
> there's a good way for a STUN or TURN server to detect Web RTC usage,
> requiring STUN and TURN servers to look for Web RTC as the use of
> HTTP, and only impose this "MUST" requirement if Web RTC is detected
> would better align that requirement with the discussion in this draft.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> idnits 2.13.01 turned up a reference problem:
> 
>  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7350' is defined on line 490, but no explicit
>     reference was found in the text
> 
> That RFC should be cited somewhere.  In addition, there are no RFCs cited
> or referenced for TLS and DTLS - they should be added (I believe that
> RFC 5246 and RFC 6347 are appropriate, respectively). 
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> [phone]             FAX: [phone]
> [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art