[rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 14 May 2015 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 8995A1B3246 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 17:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 Xb7oWpgImHo3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 17:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B8E1B3245 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 17:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACE1209D4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 13 May 2015 20:18:28 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=tbU PWY9ZBTs2DaHzM+zDcvNrCIk=; b=X8aoZPD/eJjts/EAASNE25TW7MGYQP+EuKn CuN9GiPnjzkoHtYsn1BerFmyS+ViJAlXWSdKHNGEB55AT18Dlj/CVb5fAwhCEGA2 KJQ/LqiXwbCKEUVuXNylpz7yJCzPF5zK/+h1OmJ7KpklTjeUYmaX6Ens+5oNCBYo TWjDutZE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=tbUPWY9ZBTs2DaHzM+zDcvNrCIk=; b=YdzRF JZXIiq4940d6jCT2U5Dr+Dr8tuxi4m0F6Y2Aa6SgkV00wLvNUXKEsNBbydVYZDqF gylsx+mvrvtx/Z1TmdE/wM0XURPTXd3fzjrQepW7SR6bsjyprT3rPYJzCMygUh4H CDVMziIOOZO4TRta9Z4cTDop5VCP/9/DTp2uqQ=
X-Sasl-enc: VTSWYmwVpQflAkSuE9T95Phwu1jLcnPCKAtx0aayD95O 1431562708
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.178]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ED253C00018 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C6DAACC5-0FCA-48BB-A2BA-D3E0EE35DEF4@cooperw.in>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 17:18:18 -0700
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/l35CMRkLV1pQh6cNKJQusWtAVpk>
Subject: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05
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: Thu, 14 May 2015 00:18:30 -0000

I have reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05 in preparation for IETF LC. The document is in good shape and I have requested the last call. I have a couple of questions and nits below that should be resolved together with any LC comments.

Reading Section 7, it strikes me that a question may arise during IETF LC or IESG eval about whether there is any plan to write something similar to RFC 6562 for video. Has that been discussed?

Couple of nits in that section:

s/what the other documents it references/what is in the other documents it references/

s/A complete discussion of the security/A complete discussion of the security considerations/

And in Section 10.1:
The URL given for H264 links to a seemingly blank page.