Re: Review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 18 August 2016 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95EA12D0A4; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 QY1UuSY3iXUw; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C943812D62A; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id v123so3868089qkh.2; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=deLvsjDtInsx3DQG+ezynKSStf6yCVimCExrHhyZ1cE=; b=ZyoU3+Klk/zf7GaFaSFvGkt/ieneaF5RnaTZY+xcCPoA7Qbu5EufNayL0vYNWlCy5h VymXDv1z6F8rM/VQxzgLjXybvsYKnsp0THTKGvTRtnRAZdRGwLMuQdT3R0l/CNqDMYGn y5rVsLjlbGEKurjGJmLPXPCT7lZ8MHbWs6FJ3lZjrUsMh3KZSab8gttCY1OgJ4RhAaHH FpEcVswrq1W4tdkXeMP2b7jAEvcAcERTMuyxVmgABg2HtVPT2J2t2eOP1h9XcQnl3QO+ d1nWx4lE/WKOcNNK67mF5ANi4n0xiv86RuqY+1ziTqz7J+LnSK7acY+NSyXEQGBAYWPe kqBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=deLvsjDtInsx3DQG+ezynKSStf6yCVimCExrHhyZ1cE=; b=h4uKQpB93ez11Miu/3Zu2krL1F1wn2CCylvn88mwh0aq39XoqcEyEPrQfUmCC6GMBr DZVQHrkkSqW97dU6979bvvtXbV/mpVvGPB3/YLbsPaw5MpfAyCQJ4bpryfplmNKmwQdB MpCjrz2ormYTgBxMkKcwX3MIkHjtJUFf6pfXfYMAKykGkm+ouwzUqZP6WSOyvQmj57Y5 IkrcymWCqKd3lbl3IJAfK8fFucQa6VYfQ3EteJP5NfQLm9vvw0IIV9Q4Oafvt9A3CLmy LhwA4hZMd87tv6gcr/4KW+1BTcWWLj4RJL0rbKc1QdkePa7mfz/4sjBJWVJf5/mvg4hs R2DA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooustRKWB7UGtspyAenkkWEoqO+1Cjar9c/28aXYLdeGwHanCcd4/vlkyfcTb6YoQww==
X-Received: by 10.55.31.21 with SMTP id f21mr51868529qkf.254.1471482270962; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-vpn5-404.cisco.com ([173.38.117.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j67sm17985971qkf.41.2016.08.17.18.04.29 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_80C41244-575C-4766-B550-88D3133270BC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <89c07464407c404ea8543bcb3c3dc88e@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:04:26 -0400
Message-Id: <2EE5CFE0-F2A9-40AE-AAF2-D5DAFEA614CF@gmail.com>
References: <7194DC7F-E802-42B2-AA6C-94D02167D89D@gmail.com> <89c07464407c404ea8543bcb3c3dc88e@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ri226_0aYnJwSFB-duKrFGdCCZs>
Cc: "draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery.all@ietf.org>, "Review Area gen-art@ietf.org Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:04:37 -0000

Tiru - thanks for advising me of your responses to the points in my review.

Do you and the other authors have any thoughts about my recommendations for section 5?

- Ralph

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 11:24 AM 8/17/16, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ralph,
> 
> Thanks for the review. Please see inline.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:58 AM
>> To: Review Area gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org> Team <gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>>
>> Cc: draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery.all@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery.all@ietf.org>; IETF discussion list
>> <ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>
>> 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 <http://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