Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tram-stun-dtls-03
review-ietf-tram-stun-dtls-03-genart-lc-even-2014-06-23-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tram-stun-dtls |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-06-24 | |
Requested | 2014-06-12 | |
Authors | Marc Petit-Huguenin , Gonzalo Salgueiro | |
I-D last updated | 2014-06-23 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Roni Even
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Simon Josefsson (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-tram-stun-dtls by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2014-06-23 |
review-ietf-tram-stun-dtls-03-genart-lc-even-2014-06-23-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-tram-stun-dtls-03 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2014–6-23 IETF LC End Date: 2014–6-25 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Standard track RFC . Major issues: Minor issues: I am not sure I understand section 4.3. When talking about “media keep-alive packets” is it for the STUN Binding Indication usage or for all the options in section 10 of RFC 5245. Maybe you meant that you should prefer DTLS/SRTP keep-alive like RTP no-op in this case. I had problem understanding this section. Please clarify. Nits/editorial comments: