[rtcweb] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

I have read through draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12 - both as a generic
reviewer and with the perspective of "does this do what RTCWEB requires".

I believe this document is good enough to publish, but could be improved
somewhat (usually, all documents can).

Most important points:

* The protocol has been designed and revised to be usable with non-media
data, but the introduction and abstract do not reflect this. Expunging
the media bias from the body of the document is probably not worth it,
but the intro and abstract should mention it.
* Security considerations should mention the problem that ICE reveals
addresses that might otherwise remain hidden, and that this is a privacy
concern.
* The document has removed all the SDP specific parts (good), but the
requirements it places on the negotiation mechanism aren’t collectively
documented anywhere. A section describing this would help comprehension
for people developing signalling protocols for use with ICE.
* The definition of “component” talks about a component having one
address. I believe that in current usage, it should be defined to have
an address pair. (non-symmetric RTP is dead).

The rest of my suggested changes are nits, I think.

I enclose the full text of my review as PDF; apart from the stuff above,
I don't think those comments needs much WG discussion. Editor: Please
raise issues if you think some do need it!

Hope this is helpful.

Harald