Hi Russ - Thanks for the review. My response is inline to your only review comment... On Jul 26, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 26-July-2013 > IETF LC End Date: 16-Auguest-2013 > IESG Telechat date: Unknown > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track > RFC, but a few questions should be answered. > > This document is the specification of the syntax and semantics of the > Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme for the Session Traversal > Utilities for NAT (STUN) protocol. > > Major issues: > > None. > > Minor issues: > > This document defines ABNF for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. It seems better > to do these by reference. This document and draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris are being progressed in parallel and share common elements. Duplicating the <IPv6address> and <IPv4address> ABNF production rules from RFC3986 is one of those common elements. To provide you with a bit of background, this duplication was done intentionally and was done as a result of comments during uri-review of the original TURN URI draft back in 2009. Here is the reference to the response to the relevant thread where this was decided: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg07380.html Doing this knowingly spurred the addition of the Design Note you see here in the TURN URI draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-05#appendix-B It was an oversight not to add that same Design Note to the STUN URI draft as well. The next version will include an updated version of that Design Note with specific reference to the duplicated ABNF production rules (i.e., <IPv6address>, <IPv4address>, etc.). Would that satisfactorily address your comment? Cheers, Gonzalo