Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-16

Request Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-01-26
Requested 2018-01-12
Authors Ari Keränen , Christer Holmberg , Jonathan Rosenberg
I-D last updated 2018-01-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Qin Wu (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -17 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2018-01-25
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-16
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2018-01-25
IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This is a well written document and I am sure it will serve its target
audience well. However Genart reviews take the perspective of someone new to
the field, and although I am sure it is probably correct and complete when
taken together with its references the learning curve is perhaps a little
steeper than it needs to be due to the extent of assumed knowledge. In the nits
section of this review I make a few simple suggestions that I think would make
it easier for the new reader.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

   "in the XOR-RELAYED-ADDRESS attribute. "

SB> As far as I can see this not yet been defined or a reference provided in
the document.

   The table in Figure 8 illustrates an example.

SB> There is something wierd going on here.
SB> Figure 8 seems malformed possibly spread over a page break.

SB> You introduce Ta, but it would be so much kinder to the reader to give it a
real name.

SB> DSCP is not well known so needs to defined

SB> You introduce FINGERPRINT without a pointer to where it is defined

SB> The 487 error comes out of a hat without a pointer to where it is defined

SB> ICE-CONTROLLED comes out of the same hat without a pointer/definition, same

Section, the agent sets the nominated flag of the pair to
SB> should that be nominated or NOMINATED?

In section 8.3.1 it says: " The procedures in Section 8" which is true but
strangely self referencing  Triggered Checks

   Next, the agent constructs a pair....

SB> Next after what? and a pair of what?

You say "Let HTO" again a user friendly name would be helpful to the new reader

Appendix B is great, particularly from section B5 onwards. It would be great to
forward reference this to help the reader understand the normative text earlier
in the document.