Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-02
review-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-02-secdir-lc-waltermire-2016-08-11-00

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
 Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

Summary: ready with nits.

This standards track draft describes a mechanism for a Traversal Using Relays
around NAT (TURN) client to re-associate with a TURN server after the clients
IP address and/or port changes allowing previous allocations to be kept. This
helps to support IP address mobility in a way that is transparent and seamless
to remote peers.

I found that the draft clearly articulates the problem it is trying to solve.
The security considerations seem to be appropriate for the draft.

The following are minor nits and editorial issues with the draft that would be
good to address before progressing the draft:

In section 1, second paragraph, STUN should be spelled out on its first use and
an informative reference to RFC 7635 should be included.

In section 2, there is an extra space s/[RFC5245] , and the/[RFC5245], and
the/. Similar issues exist throughout the document which also need to be fixed.

The phase "TBD (Mobility Forbidden)" is used in section 3.1.4 and in other
parts of the document as a placeholder for the 405 Mobility Forbidden STUN
Error Code requested in the IANA considerations. While the actions to be taken
by IANA are clear, the TBD placeholders should be filled in with what is
expected to be assigned by IANA before the draft progresses.

Regards,
Dave Waltermire