Skip to main content

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