Last Call Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-10
review-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-10-secdir-lc-hanna-2014-04-17-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-04-08 | |
Requested | 2014-03-20 | |
Authors | Alan Clark , Glen Zorn , Claire Bi, Qin Wu | |
I-D last updated | 2014-04-17 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -10
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Steve Hanna (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Al Morton (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Steve Hanna |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-04-17 |
review-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-loss-conceal-10-secdir-lc-hanna-2014-04-17-00
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. This document is "Ready with nits". This document defines two RTCP XR Report Blocks that allow the reporting of concealment metrics for audio applications of RTP. In layman's terms, this allows an audio receiver to report back on how much the audio is being mangled by packet loss. >From a security perspective, this document is fine. The security considerations section says that this document introduces no new security considerations beyond those described in [RFC3611]. I agree. I do have one nit that I wanted to ask about. At the very end of section 3.2, the Mean Playout Interrupt Size is defined to be 32 bits long. However, the second paragraph of this definition says: If the measured value exceeds 0xFFFD, the value 0xFFFE MUST be reported to indicate an over-range measurement. If the measurement is unavailable, the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. Shouldn't those constants be 0xFFFFFFFD, 0xFFFFFFFE, and 0xFFFFFFFF? Thanks, Steve P.S. I apologize for sending this review late. However, I believe that it's still before the IESG telechat on this document so I hope that it will have some value.