Comparison of Different NAT Traversal Techniques for Media Controlled by the Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)
draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-evaluation-16

I have two comments:

1. The introduction states that multiple levels of NATs (including CGNs) were  not considered.  While I understand the history behind this draft and the time frame when it was written, I would really like to see something mentioned about the potential impact on the different techniques.  (I could only find a brief discussion in section 4.4 (Latching) to the potential effect of multiple NATs/CGN.  Something similar to the text there would be ideal.)

2. Section 8 (Security Considerations) mentions the fact that "three way latching as well as ICE mitigates these security issues and performs the important return-routability check".  Please add a reference to this important check.  I looked at RFC5245 (ICE), but could not find that check described (just connectivity checks); is that what you're referring to with a different name?

Editorial remarks by David Black, posted here for the record as I understand that they are already taken into account in Magnus' temp version.

-- Editorial Comments:

Section 4.6.5

OLD
	The three way latching is significantly securer than
NEW
	Three way latching is significantly more secure than

I saw a number of other editorial items in the newly added text that
I'll leave to the RFC Editor.

idnits 2.13.02 found an obsolete reference:

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3489
     (Obsoleted by RFC 5389)

This is intentional, as the draft refers to an obsolete STUN feature
in that obsolete RFC, so this idnits complaint can be ignored.

I support Alvaro's second comment and think the reference would be helpful to add.