Telechat Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15
review-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15-genart-telechat-housley-2016-12-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2016-11-29 | |
Requested | 2016-11-03 | |
Authors | Lorenzo Miniero , Sergio Garcia Murillo , Victor Pascual | |
I-D last updated | 2016-12-01 | |
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 | Telechat review on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 15 (document currently at 17) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2016-12-01 |
review-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15-genart-telechat-housley-2016-12-01-00
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-15 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2016-11-25 IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-10 IESG Telechat date: 2016-12-01 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: ... However, certain SDP attributes may lead to call failures when forwarded by a media relay. Such attributes SHOULD NOT be forwarded. One notable example is the 'rtcp' [RFC3605] attribute, that UAC may make use of to explicitly state the port they're willing to use for RTCP. ... This SHOULD NOT statement is vague. One example of an attribute that should not be forwarded is given, and the previous sentence provides some specific attributes that should be forwarded. While I see why it is difficult to not be vague, some better advice to the implementer could be very helpful