Last Call Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13
review-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13-genart-lc-housley-2016-10-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-10-10
Requested 2016-09-26
Authors Lorenzo Miniero , Sergio Garcia Murillo , Victor Pascual
I-D last updated 2016-10-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -13 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Éric Vyncke (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -15 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 17)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2016-10-03
review-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13-genart-lc-housley-2016-10-03-00
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2016-10-03
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-10
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns: I wonder if this ought to be a standards-track document.
  I recognize that the STRAW WG charter calls for a standards-track
  document, but it only contains a handfull of MUST statements that are
  not repeats from another RFC.  Maybe this document should become a
  Best Current Practice (BCP) instead of a standards-track document.


Minor Concerns: In Section 3.1, it says:

   ... It SHOULD NOT, though, forward SDP
   attributes that may lead to call failures (e.g., candidates,
   fingerprints, crypto, etc.) for different reasons out of scope to
   this document. ...

This SHOULD NOT statement if a bit vague.  The previous sentence lists
specific attributes, and I see why that might be difficult to match
here, but it does not tell an implementer what attributes to not
forward.