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

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

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) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ralph,
> 
> Thanks for the review. Please see inline.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:58 AM
>> To: Review Area [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> Team <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; IETF discussion list
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[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 <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