RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Tue, 09 August 2016 16:49 UTC

From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Thread-Index: AQHR8Zg9AFN8sQqqCkCqzJzOS7OCiaBAB0aQgAEZLoD//7aQAA==
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 16:49:10 +0000
Message-ID: <92d4a285d1534ba9b58d27941a53b8b7@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
References: <0D5A57AB-E9A5-47C9-AB58-77D32BB97B1B@qti.qualcomm.com> <38321ad067a84b47a29a525d05185a7e@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> <0EF98A4A-04FD-4E34-AD1E-A6E5F5D246D9@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <0EF98A4A-04FD-4E34-AD1E-A6E5F5D246D9@qti.qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_92d4a285d1534ba9b58d27941a53b8b7XCHRCD017ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Y8bcb9ragTEezvZq-fTz0Q0fHlY>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 9:36 PM
To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tireddy@cisco.com>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org; tram@ietf.org; IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03

Thanks for the response Tiru. Trimming down to the one open issue below; everything else looks perfect:

On 8 Aug 2016, at 23:50, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:

3.1.2 - Change "MUST" to "will" both times in the second paragraph.

I presume you're OK with those changes?

[TR] Yes.

The last sentence of the section I don't understand; it doesn't seem to have any interoperability implications, and I don't see why the client can't examine the ticket in any way it wants. Either justify the sentence or delete it.

[TR] Even if the client examines the ticket there is no guarantee that it will be able decode its fields. This line is added to suggest that there is no need for the client to examine the ticket.

Well, "no need" is very different than "MUST NOT". If you really want to keep the sentence (and I still think you could just delete it), I would suggest simply changing it to something like: "Note: There is no guarantee that the fields in the ticket are going to be decodable to a client, and therefore attempts by a client to examine the ticket are unlikely to be useful."

[TR] Works for me, updated.

-Tiru

pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mob… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mob… Pete Resnick
RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mob… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobilit… Pete Resnick
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tra… Jari Arkko