Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration
Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 January 2016 00:09 UTC
Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F299B1A6F6F; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:09:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 4BHiSnCNkDHI; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (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 CDEF01A6F6E; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id k1so339675658vkb.2; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:09:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Kiezr9pO8burGUB2Gt3oabFNFtEhvjD48ZOc4SKV/2Q=; b=FoKxytXzSt10HZdPCdv1FMP0DGqYUgcAClhwWdCRD/dLhl5vsfcHdemDn9JnEDE83m uTT/yJflEq3ssVKe2DiZeRSI9M+N15Ypxm+WBE9X4EFRjIoX6eM7q4jbB0LO6UyOzGxa 1HqNvqVm/Vu9IGyTbEiicI3+LdoSa+5XMQ06zbqhguIbux2ijzwP6mdCCvK4sE1+Q58q cesDG855MbFf6gAooZUVp7sd/JlXgGzbwfOWeeSgR7f0QHXdIHmM32hUZ/pRoYYAvG5k anbU4s0JaNyNvs0X1RS7Kkyv2pbwvdCCA57r7QjShtb/mDLqJwOz2Lerx/lxjRcZ8ybz j6rQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Kiezr9pO8burGUB2Gt3oabFNFtEhvjD48ZOc4SKV/2Q=; b=UqZd2EVJ0yi+RPUjRVFUHn0BjfsoVokfC+eFrc9h2bXa1RkI4DYB/nxGUVE472L+Dd VaLIvm/UqEzSGbZVRYif/iYmV6woQ47Do2452+EIjw8h+sJhb8bweb7OUz8XhWpblc0w 7tAN9cg913GqDVwDO47zMZyOW8FjzoCzlgTP0EdLkY8O31ImaFbsvjUOpjh1UFxOYBaO EELo7S7uDpODZrqDlQUgPZ7NrzhN3eYdE98Jwj1O/14ZZB+EJLOEMwDYrjzxrq+C4dw0 j4Mm1M0W20aFUs79zgWLQiKt30B4siVA4O/6H89bdDqw6dGUofcYc68v47fUfFhLNA2M KR7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkrzIixUjkl7HjdClg52QaceezPI3UYT5at+AysO6enrXWWeI2ff7rneSC/qcVfDv/2Qjx9cc0y9TtqlnN2ZiJZT3hMyA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.150.23 with SMTP id y23mr18161414vkd.87.1453162172635; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.106.130 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:09:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BB781DD8-4117-4B54-8DEE-B589B62B2703@nostrum.com>
References: <BB781DD8-4117-4B54-8DEE-B589B62B2703@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:09:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGSmKT7Usjnacxny8Zc_EPbwkk1dPnT_E0RWCLox56iPzg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140f59c19e0f10529a4af10"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/3ggkpBvhjE7X7gNZhz3EhxpHbPQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration.all@ietf.org, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:09:37 -0000
Hello Ben Thanks for the review. Please see below for the resolutions on your comments (marked in bold). Substantive (to be resolved before last call): *- (This is really editorial, but I think there's a chance for confusion.) The references in section 3 seem insufficient. Section 1 lists RFCs that define most of all of the related transport protocol profiles. For example, [RFC4585] for TCP/RTP/AVPF and [RFC3711] for TCP/RTP/SAVP. That information should probably also go in section 3, since that's the section referenced by the IANA considerations section. To avoid duplication, consider moving the bits after the first paragraph of section 1 into the respective subsections of 3.* [Suhas] Removed the detailed proto descriptions from Section 1 and moved them to individual sections in Section 3. Now the Section1 just has the following para regarding the identifiers. " This specification describes additional SDP transport protocol identifiers for transporting RTP Media over TCP as defined in Section 3 <#sec.proto-identifiers>. " and Section 3 has been updated to have template as below " 3.1. <#rfc.section.3.1> TCP/RTP/AVPF Transport Realization <#sec.tcp.rtp.avpf> The TCP/RTP/AVPF transport describes RTP Media with RTCP-based Feedback [RFC4585] <#RFC4585> over TCP. It is realized as described below: - RTP/AVPF stream over the TCP transport is realized using the framing method defined in[RFC4571] <#RFC4571>. 3.2. <#rfc.section.3.2> TCP/RTP/SAVP Transport Realization <#sec.tcp.rtp.savp> The TCP/RTP/SAVP transport describes Secure RTP (SRTP) Media [RFC3711] <#RFC3711> over TCP. It is realized as described below: - RTP/SAVP stream over the TCP transport is realized using the framing method defined in[RFC4571] <#RFC4571>. and so on for other proto identifiers *- The security considerations seem inadequate. Most, if not all, of the proto values listed here refer to some other RFC that has it's own security considerations. So it doesn't really seem true to say there are no considerations other than those in 4566.* [Suhas] The new security considerations sections is as below " 6. <#rfc.section.6> Security Considerations <#sec.security> The new "proto" identifiers registered by this document in the SDP parameters registry maintained by IANA is primarily for use by the offer/answer model of the Session Description Protocol[RFC3264] <#RFC3264> for the negotiation and establishment of RTP based Media over the TCP transport. This specification doesn't introduce any additional security considerations beyond those specified by the individual transport protocols identified in the "proto" identifiers and those detailed in Section 7 of [RFC4566] <#RFC4566>. " Editorial (non-blocking): *- The abstract is long. The 2nd paragraph describes what the draft does. Can some or all of the first paragraph be relegated to the intro?* [Suhas] I have removed the first para from the abstract and moved it to the intro section. The new abstract is : " Abstract <#rfc.abstract> The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) specification establishes a registry of profile names for use by higher-level control protocols, such as the Session Description Protocol (SDP), to refer to the transport methods. This specification describes the following new SDP transport protocol identifiers for transporting RTP Media over TCP: 'TCP/RTP/AVPF', 'TCP/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP', 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF' " *- 3: It would be helpful to mention that the transport protocol mentioned in the first paragraph goes in the <proto> field in the M-line.* [Suhas]. I updated the section 3 intro to have the follow new text " The 'm=' line in SDP specifies, among other items, the transport protocol *(identified via the 'proto' field)* to be used for the media in the session. See the "MediaDescriptions" section of SDP [RFC4566] <#RFC4566>for a discussion on transport protocol identifiers. " Please let me know if these edits look fine and I can produce a new version for further review. Cheers Suhas On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Here's my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto-iana-registration. I > have a couple of comments I'd like to resolve before last call, and a few > editorial comments.: > > Substantive (to be resolved before last call): > > - (This is really editorial, but I think there's a chance for confusion.) > The references in section 3 seem insufficient. Section 1 lists RFCs that > define most of all of the related transport protocol profiles. For example, > [RFC4585] for TCP/RTP/AVPF and [RFC3711] for TCP/RTP/SAVP. That information > should probably also go in section 3, since that's the section referenced > by the IANA considerations section. To avoid duplication, consider moving > the bits after the first paragraph of section 1 into the respective > subsections of 3. > > - The security considerations seem inadequate. Most, if not all, of the > proto values listed here refer to some other RFC that has it's own security > considerations. So it doesn't really seem true to say there are no > considerations other than those in 4566. > > Editorial (non-blocking): > > - The abstract is long. The 2nd paragraph describes what the draft does. > Can some or all of the first paragraph be relegated to the intro? > > - 3: It would be helpful to mention that the transport protocol mentioned > in the first paragraph goes in the <proto> field in the M-line. > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >
- [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-proto… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-p… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-p… Ben Campbell