Re: [TLS] [MMUSIC] Confirmation call on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Authors and WGs,

In my review for the publication writeup I did spot some issues in the 
draft. Please consider the following issues:

1. Abstract: With the addition of the ZRTP the abstract should benefit 
from being updated. The ZRTP protocol being possible to multiplex is 
missing as well as that there are now 4 issues.

2. Abstract contains [ref] to RFC 5764. This is an ID nit.

3. Section 1. The introduction is not explicitly saying that it updates 
RFC 5764. I think that can be put as a sentence after:

    This is achieved by
    modifying the IANA registries with instructions for coordination
    between the protocols at risk.

4. Reference ID-nits:

   == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of
      draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-23

5. Section 2:

ID-nits complains about the modified boilerplate for the RFC2119 text. 
First of all one usually don't cut down the list to only the used ones. 
The requirement on all caps ones I am very divided about. I do have a 
preference for unmodified boilerplate, this as I otherwise have to 
explain in the write-up the ID-nit.

6. Section 6:

    In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the
    unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the RFC 5764
    demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for TURN channels by
    allocating the values from 64 to 79 for this purpose.

I think this text fails to be explicit about that this restricts the 
TURN Channel space to a more limited set of possible channels when the 
TURN client does the channel binding request. Thus affecting the TURN 
channel allocation algorithm in the client implementations, at least 
when used in combination of muxing.

Based on this and the fact that this specification changes the IANA 
registrations performed by RFC5766, I think this document to have 
"Updates" for RFC5766 also. So please add that in header, abstract and 
introduction.

7. Updates RFC5389:

Looking at the impact also on the STUN protocol I would also think that 
this requires and "Updates" also for RFC 5389.


8. Section 10.3:

The IANA registry name is not the correct one. The IANA page says that 
the registry name is:

Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Channel Numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/stun-parameters/stun-parameters.xhtml#turn-channel

Please update.

9. Section 12.2:

The reference to ZRTP [RFC6189] is likely in the wrong category, at the 
same time moving this to a normative one creates a downref. I guess it 
one that has to be accepted in this case. I suggest that you move it to 
the normative references.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------