Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notificaiton-04

["Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for responding, Rachel.

I think your proposed text is good.  I'm not sure what more can be said or done, but this at least acknowledges it.


--
- m&m

Matt Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc.

> On Mar 1, 2016, at 19:23, Huangyihong (Rachel) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> Please see my replies inline.
> 
> BR,
> Rachel
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Miller (mamille2) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 5:20 AM
>> To: [e-mail]; The IESG;
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notificaiton-04
>> 
>> I am the coincidentally-assigned Gen-ART and SecDir reviewer for this draft.
>> The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being
>> processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  The Security Directorate reviews all
>> IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the security area directors.
>> Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments that arrived
>> on time.
>> 
>> For more information on Gen-Art, please see the FAQ at
>> 
>> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >.
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-04
>> Reviewer: Matthew Miller
>> Review Date: 2016-02-26
>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-02-26
>> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>> 
>> Summary:
>> 
>> Ready with a minor issue.
>> 
>> Major issues:
>> 
>> Minor issues:
>> 
>> * I didn't see any discussion of the case where the RTP extension and the RTCP
>> message don't agree on the interval.  Well-behaved software shouldn't do this,
>> but it seems like something that could happen.  I'm not sure what should be
>> done in this case, but it seems to me like something to at least acknowledge it.
> 
> [Rachel]: Good question. Since RTCP message and RTP extension packets are all from the same main RTP sender, it's the sender's duty to keep them contain the same interval information. So I don't see any chance that inconsistent intervals appear. But, I do think it's worth to mention it in the draft. How about adding a sentence in first paragraph, Section 3.2, like this
> "The main RTP sender MUST make sure the splicing information contained in the RTCP splicing notification message consistent with the information included in the RTP header extensions. "
> So what do you think?
> 
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> 
>> * idnits is reporting a bad reference to "3711" Section 7 "Security
>> Considerations", and that RFC 3711 is an unused normative reference.  I think
>> this is because the pointer to it in Section 7 doesn't start with "RFC".
> 
> [Rachel]: Right. Will fix it.
>> 
>> * In Section 1. "Introduction", it seems to me "However" would be a better
>> word than "Nevertheless" to use here.
> 
> [Rachel]: All right.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> - m&m
>> 
>> Matt Miller
>> Cisco Systems, Inc.