[rtcweb] WGLC review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-13

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 09 May 2014 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6C21A00EC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 14:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 cm_9n13iNY-4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 14:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71B31A00BF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2014 14:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s49LuCar040178 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2014 16:56:14 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.29]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 421365371.975828-66527c9195781004e1aa67413fe3e205
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Message-Id: <B01CF683-847B-43AF-AE91-7BE50D13C0D4@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:56:12 -0500
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/KizqxTJetVr6QLC_xpCFjGQuON8
Subject: [rtcweb] WGLC review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-13
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 21:56:21 -0000

Hi,

This draft seems well constructed. I don't have much in the way of technical comments, but do have a few extremely minor/editorial comments:

Thanks!

/Ben

----------------------

-- 4.1, 2nd to last bullet:

Can there be a reference for " RTCP timer reconsideration "

-- 4.3, last paragraph: "RTP receivers MUST follow the recommendations in Section 4.3 of [RFC7160] in order to support ..."

I assume that you mean that receivers MUST support the recommendations because they need to support multiple clock rates. A strained interpretation could assume that, if they want to support multiple clock rates, they MUST support..."

-- 4.5, first paragraph: " ... support for multiplexing RTP data packets and RTCP control packets on a single transport-layer flow for each RTP session is REQUIRED, provided it is negotiated in the signalling channel ..."

I assume the intent is that support...is REQUIRED, but only _used_ if negotiated? As written, it seems to say _support_ is both REQUIRED and negotiated. 

(A similar construction occurs in 4.6, 2nd paragraph)

-- 5.2.2, last paragraph:

If I understand 6904 correctly, you signal the use of encryption for each header you want to encrypt, right? If so, then how is "explicitly disabled through ... signalling" different than "not signalled"? If it's the same thing, then this comes perilously close saying "... RECOMMENDED that the encryption be used ... unless you don't want to." 

 (I have no objection to the "explicitly disabled through the API" )

-- Figures 1 and 2:

Any chance of centering these?

-- 12.1.3:

How does (or will) DART fit in here? Seems like it might have something to say, but I'm not sure how the timing relates.