Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3B512F1A2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:49:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 LbQoPLsx4Zft for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x12b.google.com (mail-it1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (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 47F771310F7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id d125so6485115ith.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:49:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M/Yycqz2JgtbjWoC2VoxcAsmmJ90e62tyOEXKbnYqU4=; b=szwaJWhhLzGmHfi8dSb8LuNCO15IxVcYX8ULzB9cyajfnMZIGsTI3FeM7IINMrrYkk f4nxD5kltlM9yiBKCDRgVoBuPkkmMfQfs0Ly0Bmn2Q/dI8TVcQoCuWyOGcP5uh15zUMa 4wGoIz0fy2AGDZHWbxmxwYzIGexr03f+FYHGiuPwv+jQZKZfmMN/PbdqrwVVNZoJBvgU 7g6lKp3WbOHjCXk/YfOQTjbi0vmN2lSoyPdkdajKiD/WUrhddfep278+X0wgh7y0Royg hpRJkoHWG4rzFrGBcfvz2Lpu5My8VBZwpWMUuneuXjJaUCmPqW22Ng4leVKvdsOwLMqt uJUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M/Yycqz2JgtbjWoC2VoxcAsmmJ90e62tyOEXKbnYqU4=; b=L2pt4yCe/zTmKFiQUl0s8kVVtUAGc1ActTNFMQrMXeYl+AbisXjt4VlgEBOnHjPc3i nQuHw9Yo2ueCmWdZhPNafDJTiY6057HdkM1Soe2kU3R/3HsIuj00tsLJ5nNEC4622HsY +vOCfULEoRei1TR2ND3opVoiO7eKolalibPS09CTe0WHACrap8EAjZsf3EMXW0VU+gbC EtRYt2VilN0PyZWTWBDBellCKNWWvA4hzHk2So6yy7L5QYQq/tonUKlOndZkg5fO61ez VSU2ISW8U/EcuBxKnuK9hE9tIAaaD5q5vLoiiOdn5DgAg3BcEF5uvFGHBE+ooFSvO0ej oNuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX9S/fg8CO90eVDJof9+sT4gY5EqeOLTPRBuFBu+lR7LnOiM2/s 1wR2ODP51Dghqs6lq/yEO2/oq3S6R9PtcOcXImpbRA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw8QeH6B2lQmG5OIOXRSfv/EE7pFnjh48ZdRQXnGmfuIYK6mywQzX8Whsftn4upBYnClbf+5JxDOKA0Pc67VAQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:ccc5:: with SMTP id x188mr3653913itf.123.1551916167261; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:49:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155138469731.28638.15165601679967743186@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155138469731.28638.15165601679967743186@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:49:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1ywJLVVoMDJxVRoy-KccTP7cvnXymrp-wk-Od-RtxMdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling.all@ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df7d24058375a3c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Mat4ZzwxRrgZvkMSnvygYyTwZcI>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 23:49:31 -0000

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:13 PM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> 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
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-??
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: 2019-02-28
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-15
> IESG Telechat date: 2019-03-07
>
> Summary: Ready as a proposed standard with 1 minor comment and some nits.
> In the enumeration below, "Sn" stands for "Section n".
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
> - S8: Perhaps a short sentence like the following one is a bit more
>   descriptive than the current text in the section.  (Please feel free to
>   use your editorial discretion to disregard this comment, just that it
>   does not hurt to be explicit in standard documents.  At least that is my
>   opinion.)
>
>     This document has described leak of IP address privacy when WebRTC
>     engages in peer-to-peer connections.  This document suggests
>     mitigations against the leak of this privacy in the form of
>     four different modes of WebRTC communications that explicitly guide
>     the WebRTC developer in making an informed choice on how private the
>     peer-to-peer communication should be.
>

Sure - happy to add text of this sort if we think it would be valuable.

>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> - S3: s/private physical\/virtual/private physical or virtual/
> - S3:
>   OLD:
>   ...exposed upwards to the web application, so that they can be
>   communicated to the remote endpoint for its checks.
>   NEW:
>   ...provided to the web application so they can be communicated to
>   the remote endpoint for connectivity checks.
> - S3: s/concerns, #1/concerns, the first/
>    (Similarly for other places where you have #2, etc.  Better to be
>    pedantic and minimize colloquialism when writing RFCs.)
>

OK.


> - S4: s/As a result, we want to avoid blunt solutions/As a result, the
>    preference is to avoid blunt solutions/
>    (Reason: Pronouns like "We" are fine for academic paper, but perhaps
>    avoided in RFCs.)
>

:-)


> - S6.2:
>    - s/sent to the web application host/sent to the remote web application
> host/
>    - s/and TCP get the same routing/and TCP get the same routing treatment/
>
> OK.