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

Justin Uberti <> Sat, 23 February 2019 01:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603AF130EB0 for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:20:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZfub2GvMPLL for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:20:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31C4D12D4E7 for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i2so5970337ite.5 for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:20:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2jGUF1PqVz2Ca52vwsHOwTM89RNMEMBP9Z7LdIl/8pc=; b=UlVPgtgklXjS6Eu2z7xl9oHRzrvvza+pocswtZYeu/dvmUPJ0ZM1yJoS6dYQECvHE7 3ArBgZrEiRHHpjEZZOHWRDkln/Tmf2LuBLuau7PmywnsVXLMQaMYYmNuJ3OQDR04oJ2g gMQoeU048iZL36UAo1yf2kov2icXKmQzLDlQdmPt+5UU2x/G+oEchs6gSsUr8STEzAKn c94YVxlrNT7h+xNP3F5CIXv2cm/1b1HP/aGEKfB28C6npNkoog+a9pZuQd5D2vgd63Zx hdekUqc+RKllDf0a6b7/9ytbOfePQ+l730WEzKFsg1xmxxgiUG8l9vJIk5yFib79jtYc 02zA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2jGUF1PqVz2Ca52vwsHOwTM89RNMEMBP9Z7LdIl/8pc=; b=dMsfj5Rolv0Do0lZqpumgfjcQ6Ceh1o9l6Jh9lVDJld/3quflKZnunkEEVdojJadQc KnG49ByYe1p+UCk9BbZp2yhlvTUSeHLZL0DL8f4y20X0Oh5q8MxnPr/Ab+v8ipRiQhRm Jc5MpMs6UljuTnr8qEMYZ0d1w+DfVoJff2sr5agC82Y9aQtxzVWHDAkm1NfiR1fNRAEf 2CEXN9/1ZdRE65M1ogsvT9gb1QzE3p8ofEagkYYrFfoKDhQAlQb4rjTxjzBSGczk574z je63de0vYno9QZvSWLFqUHJCaDgd9v8mazPV04mfZQ7c6leRuNzz7WxC59yo02r2A9wD PNgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubqsAlpGTv+8JL280syuhKcYDaCAjHlNUcFZJTjzIipjG4YTFtn DUFe4v6+6GtX2vxAEpBN3nsz0D++ZYJSSoVzq5CpuQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IaFCzL1vbw1zFVP48RR7wb+ZrwIzTclhrD3CJhbItnkzQpcZsMKwfX9z5a5kpstQQ0l+iPMMfZb5Ek5aRttMuo=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:28cb:: with SMTP id h194mr3876974ith.8.1550884804784; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:20:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Justin Uberti <>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 17:19:53 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Joseph Touch <>
Cc:,, RTCWeb IETF <>, IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e0d0d20582858175"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 01:20:09 -0000

Thanks for your comments. See below.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:56 AM Joseph Touch <> wrote:

> Reviewer: Joseph Touch
> Review result: Ready
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the
> discussion list for information.
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> if you reply to or forward this review.
> This document has no significant transport issues.
> As a very minor issue, the document refers to the use of UDP "connect":
>    Once a suitable remote IP has been determined, the implementation can
>    create a UDP socket, bind it to the appropriate wildcard address, and
>    tell it to connect to the remote IP.  Generally, this results in the
>    socket being assigned a local address based on the kernel routing
>    table, without sending any packets over the network.
> It might be useful to be more clear that this is an OS command (not a
> protocol
> one). If the particular semantics of this command are relevant, that
> should be
> noted as well.

Agreed. Thoughts on what would make this clearer?