[MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22
Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 05 February 2017 03:23 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814B11294FE; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 19:23:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148626499152.2778.12224491829240452688.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 19:23:11 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/wJqzZA4N5Z2HqaxZP3ygrVoRBVQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp.all@ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Subject: [MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 03:23:11 -0000
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review result: Ready with Nits Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22 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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2017-02-XX IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-09 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready with nits -------- Comments: --------- Two points I noted in the writeup: "There are existing implementations of earlier versions of the document..." Excellent, but I wonder why we don't see Implementation Status sections under RFC 6982 in more Last Call drafts. "IPv6 address examples are not necessary since IP version differences are immaterial to the purpose of the specification." It's just as easy to give an IPv6 example though, and more future proof. Minor issue: (almost a nit) ------------ > 1. Introduction ... > NOTE: Due to the characteristics of TCP, usage of 'TCP/DTLS/SCTP' > will always force ordered and reliable delivery of the SCTP packets, > which limits the usage of the SCTP options. Therefore, it is > RECOMMENDED that TCP is only used in situations where UDP traffic is > blocked. Why would one choose 'TCP/DTLS/SCTP' rather than just 'TCP/TLS'? I don't object to it being specified, but since you don't support multihoming or multiple associations, what is the use case, in a few words? Nits: ----- > 4.4.2. SDP Media Description values > > m= line parameter parameter value(s) > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > <media>: "application" > <proto>: "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" or "TCP/DTLS/SCTP" > <port>: UDP port number (for "UDP/DTLS/SCTP") > TCP port number (for ""UDP/DTLS/SCTP") I think the last line should be: TCP port number (for "TCP/DTLS/SCTP") There is some inconsistency in the use of quotation marks: "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" or 'UDP/DTLS/SCTP'
- [MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22 Brian Carpenter
- Re: [MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp… Christer Holmberg