Hi Gorry, Thanks for the careful read. See inline for a few comments -- no comment means OK. Tom P. PS. I'll give your new SC draft a careful read in the next few days... > -----Original Message----- > From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:58 AM > To: dccp@xxxxxxxx; Phelan, Tom > Cc: gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Comments on DTLS/DCCP I-D > > I have a few comments on the DTLS/DCCP I-D. These are: > > 1) The abstract uses the word "describes" please change to "specifies", > since this is being considered for a PS, not an INFO RFC. > > 2) The abstract would benefit from 1 or two lines about why DTLS is > useful... For example taken from abstract of DTLS itself? E.g. > " DTLS provides communications privacy for datagram protocols. This > allows > client/server > applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent > eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery." > > 3) Intro: "describes" -> "specifies". > > 4) Section 3.2 - is this a RFC2119 "MUST" or not? - please explain. > > the two handshakes must happen in series > ^^^^ [Tom P.] No, it's more like a "needs to" -- I'll find some better phrase. > > 5) Section 3.2 - is this a RFC2119 "MUST" or not? - please explain. > > Subsequent DTLS handshake messages ... must wait for the completion > ^^^^ [Tom P.] This should be a MUST. > > 6) Section 3.4 - could it be helpful to refer to the SC work item (e.g. as > an informative reference)? > > 7) Section 3.5. > My understanding is that Service Codes can be used to identify protocol > versions - although use to differentiate variants of a single protocol are > to be discouraged. Would the working group expect a NEW subsequent version > of DTLS to be allocated a new set of service codes, or to use the same? [Tom P.] I'm trying to remember where we ended up on this -- did we decide that two different SCs can listen on the same port or not? (Did a quick search of the archive but couldn't find the relevant thread) If two SCs can't listen on the same port, then a new SC for a new version doesn't work so well -- you'd need to get a new port too. At any rate, I'll read your new SC draft with this in mind. Not sure from your comment above whether you're talking about a new version of an application that uses DTLS or a new version of DTLS. Are you suggesting that a new version of DTLS would force all applications using it to get a new SC? That seems a little cumbersome. > > 8) Do you propose to document some Service Code values for IETF-defined > services, e.g. Define some SC allocations for RTP/DTLS/DCCP? [Tom P.] I wasn't considering doing that. It seems to me that the place for that is where the application is defined. > > 9) Section 6 > Consider renaming this section "References" and make "Normative > References" > a subsection. > > Best wishes, > > Gorry >
