IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Sat, 16 February 2019 05:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0C7129A85; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 21:47:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 j0bI3qXbh2JN; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 21:47:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 699511277D2; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 21:47:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x1G5lMOr086429 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:47:24 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1550296046; bh=Gfw/MhIVFSUIlJRiu9EOA0cJwfrzipc9cvk9jsCRWBQ=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=HxafWDh9+ySvREylyLVIGTMbm5XNI3YmsUYN5nPgjxW3R8OoKCvIu+pzcqFhp6/ij BodMXSXF4PAD/d1QfEUqawWvMh4FvI7PU9Pb9e5Hq/icV1Uy4qGB84vPkns3nyEG27 dDy6FKGQxPOVJmDl2bQU6E6TNvSEPtc93jPphKzs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.29]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <4B985943-DDA4-42EE-B6FD-F567A5841F75@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D6517A40-C171-476F-A311-B70E7AD5F6ED"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:47:21 -0600
In-Reply-To: <em99f9a1ec-e503-4a74-a0c9-0b58b55d0a1e@sydney>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsv-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework.all@ietf.org, perc@ietf.org
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
References: <154930159870.28630.16457371613620717540@ietfa.amsl.com> <em99f9a1ec-e503-4a74-a0c9-0b58b55d0a1e@sydney>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/dMHm8Yujohmz4mI9NnsmLhbiUlw>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 05:47:35 -0000

I have a comment on one point, below:

> On Feb 15, 2019, at 10:08 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Some keywords appear not defined before first used - whilst these are likely
>> to be well-known by the coimmunity of interest, it would none-the-less
>> be helpful to define these:
>> 
>> SRTP; RTCP; SIP; SDP.
> 
> Most of these have a reference that follows them (RTCP was the one exception, I think). Are you saying we should fully state what SRTP stands for, for example, or are you saying references were missing?

Abbreviations should be expanded except for those listed as “well-known” by the RFC editor, whether or not they have a citation. The list is at https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt> . Well-known abbreviations are marked with an asterisk.

To save you from searching: SIP is marked as well-known. SRTP, RTCP, and SDP are not.

Thanks!

Ben.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email