Re: [Sipbrandy] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-04 - Christer's review

[Andy Hutton <[e-mail]>]

See below my responses to Christer's comments and sorry for the late response.


Andy

On 20 April 2018 at 08:58, Christer Holmberg
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Below is my WGLC review.
>
> I base my review based on the assumption that the associated MMUSIC draft
> is not going to be progressed, and that draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp is the
> ONLY deliverable related to OSRTP and SDP O/A.
>
> Also, some of my comments is repeating what I have said previously, but I
> include them in my review in order to have everything in one place.
>
>
> GENERAL:
> --------
>
> QG_1: The draft will be published as an Informational RFC (I know the
> reason, so no need to discuss that). Because of that, many SDOs will not
> be able to normatively reference it. So, if such SDO wants to adopt SDP
> O/A procedures of OSRTP (I know there are SDOs, or at least SDO members,
> interested in OSRTP), they would have to ³re-define² the procedures
> themselves.
>
> I wonder whether it would be useful to include some text/guidance
> regarding that in the document, i.e., recommending that such procedures
> are based on the procedures in the draft, for interoperability purpose etc?
>

[Andy H] - Personally I don't see the need for this but if you want
this and want to provide text I would not object.

>
> QG_2: There are no BUNDLE considerations. Even though it may seem obvious,
> I think it would be useful to indicate that the same security selection
> needs to be applied to all RTP-based m- sections within a BUNDLE group.
>
>

[AndyH] - Good idea.


> Section 1:
> ----------
>
>
> Q1_1: Shall we really reference individual drafts that will not progress?
> Couldn¹t we simply talk about ³based on previous work and studies done by
> Hadriel Kaplan"
>


[AndyH] - I would prefer to keep the reference to the individual draft
given that this draft is informational I think it is good information
to have and the kaplan draft referenced is well known.


>
> Section 3:
> ----------
>
> Q3_1: I don¹t understand the title of the section. Shouldn¹t it be ³SDP
> Offer/Answer Procedures²?

[AndyH] - I agrree that would be a better title for the section.

>
> Q3_2: Eventhough the document is Informational, since Section 3 does
> contain O/A text I think it should be done properly, describing how the
> offer is generated, how the answer is generated etc.
>

[AndyH - I believe the text has all the relevant information but it
could rewritten in the traditional form of "Generating the Initial SDP
Offer" and "Generating the SDP Answer" I don't have a strong opinion
on this but just want to get this done so whatever allows it to get
done gets my vote.

>
> Q3_3: There is no text on subsequent offers. If security has been
> negotiated in a previous O/A exchange, what profile values etc do I
> include in subsequent offers?
>

[AndyH] - I don't see any special procedures for subsequent offers it
is the same as the initial offer if we have to update the document it
may be worth pointing this out.


>
> Section 4:
> ----------
>
> Q4_1: Doesn¹t the last paragraph belong in the Applicability section?

[AndyH] - It is I think good to say when not to use these procedures
in the security considerations but it could also be considered part of
the applicability section. I think as long as it is stated in the
document we are okay.


>
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19/04/18 14:21, "Sipbrandy on behalf of Gonzalo Camarillo"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will
>>end on May 10th:
>>
>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-04
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Gonzalo
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Sipbrandy mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sipbrandy mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy