Re: [MMUSIC] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-38: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

    First, as I also indicated to Alexey, the new version of the draft was submitted before all IESG issues had been resolved, due to a misunderstanding among the authors. Sorry for the confusion.
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    >A fairly minor point, but the example in Section 5.6 is not compliant
    >with the ABNF for the ice-options production, which uses SP to separate
    >different ice-option-tag values; the example uses a comma.
    
    DOH! I will fix that, and remove the comma.
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    >Thank you for addressing most of my comments from the -37!  A few
    >still remain, below.
    >
    >Can you remind me why the discussion of an additional three-second
    >waiting period for SIP with forking was removed from (now-) Section 7?
    
    I removed the paragraph because I don't think there was anything SIP specific about it. 

    Also, my intention was to move the text about forking to Section 7.3, but that's another thing I didn't have time to do before the new version was submitted.
    
    >Do we have anywhere a definition of what it means to "indicate ICE
    >support in an SDP offer/answer"?  (As distinct from ice2 support.)  I remember
    >some discussion about containing a ufrag/password being enough, but that
    >doesn't seem to have ended up in the document.
    
    That’s another thing still to be done.

     --- 

    Section 4.2.2
    
    > Aren't "rtcp attribute SHOULD be included" and "rtcp attribute MAY be
    > omitted" just duplicating existing normative requirements from previous
    > specifications (which thus would not need new normative language here)?
    > I think we talked about how this is slightly different from some of the previous
    > relevant specifications, so calling out any differences here might be worthwhile.

    I agree that would be useful. 
    
    ---

    > Section 5.1
    >
    > I appreciate that IP address privacy is mentioned here.  (It might
    > be good in the security considerations, too.)
    
    Another thing I didn't do before the new version was submitted. I will fix that.

    ---

    Section 9
    
    > I think this top-level section would be a great place to reiterate that
    > the SDP and ICE security considerations apply, since we are using both
    > of them in combination.  Specifically, the IP Address Privacy concerns
    > are only briefly mentioned elsewhere in the document, and could be worth
    > reiterating.

    That's strange. I had done that change in the pull request (https://github.com/suhasHere/ice-sip-sdp/pull/18/files).

    In fact, it seems like none of the changes to the security considerations have been incorporated. Suhas?

    Regards,

    Christer