Hi Michael, > On 9 Sep 2020, at 09:22, Michael Scharf via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Michael Scharf > Review result: Ready with Issues > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF > discussion list for information. > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC > tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. > > Major issues > ------------- > > None > > Minor issues > ------------- > > 1/ Section 5: > > All RTP congestion control algorithms MUST specify how they > respond to the loss of feedback packets. > > This is a process-related requirement not relevant for interoperability of > implementations. In addition, the requirement is not very specific (What would > have to be specified?). I am not sure if such a requirement in capital letters > is really needed here. This should be handled consistently in all IETF > documents. Happy to change this to “need to specify”, but I also think “MUST” is appropriate. RTCP congestion control feedback packets can carry information about a larger number of data packets than is typical for, e.g., TCP ACKs, so it might be considered more critical that response to loss of feedback is defined. > 2/ Section 11: > > The Security Considerations do not discuss off-path attacks, and it is not > clear why this case is missing. Can an off-path attacker trick the sender into > sending at either an excessively high or excessively low rate? An off-path attacker can’t modify RTCP congestion control feedback, but they could potentially spoof such packets. The fix is the same: use Secure RTP to authenticate. Will clarify. > Nits > ---- > > 1/ Abstract: > > The protocol extension enables fine-grained feedback on per-packet reception > quality. The rationale is provided in Section 1 and (more comprehensively) in > Section 8. Yet, I wonder if this objective could also be made a bit more > explicit in the abstract, e.g., along the lines of the "fine-grained feedback" > wording in the first paragraph of Section 8. Sure, seems reasonable. > 2/ Section 7: > > Typo in "a=ecn-capaable-rtp:” Will fix. -- Colin Perkins https://csperkins.org/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
