Thanks for your review, David. I am trying to determine how to deal with this draft in the upcoming IESG telechat. Has there been any discussion of the issue you raise? Do the authors have a response? Jari On 21 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> 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-ietf-tram-stun-origin-05 > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: March 20, 2015 > IETF LC End Date: March 17, 2015 > > Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues > described in the review. > > This draft describes the addition of a web origin attribute to STUN and > usage of that attribute in several protocol contexts. The draft is well- > written and easy to read. I found one minor issue which may be editorial. > > Major issues: None. > > Minor issues: > > Section 2.7 discusses use of multiple STUN origins with Web RTC and > concludes by imposing a "MUST" requirement on use of multiple STUN > origins with HTTP in general (use first origin, ignore others). While > Web RTC may be the predominant or only current use of STUN and TURN with > HTTP, this "MUST" could foreclose the use of STUN origins with other > uses of HTTP. I'm not sure what those possible future uses might be, > but at a minimum this draft ought to more tightly scope its discussion > of use of STUN origins with HTTP to limit that usage to Web RTC. If > there's a good way for a STUN or TURN server to detect Web RTC usage, > requiring STUN and TURN servers to look for Web RTC as the use of > HTTP, and only impose this "MUST" requirement if Web RTC is detected > would better align that requirement with the discussion in this draft. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > idnits 2.13.01 turned up a reference problem: > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC7350' is defined on line 490, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > That RFC should be cited somewhere. In addition, there are no RFCs cited > or referenced for TLS and DTLS - they should be added (I believe that > RFC 5246 and RFC 6347 are appropriate, respectively). > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black@xxxxxxx Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail