Hi Ralph, Thanks for the review. Please see inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:58 AM > To: Review Area gen-art@xxxxxxxx Team <gen-art@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery.all@xxxxxxxx; IETF discussion list > <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for > the IETF Chair. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call > comments you may receive. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08 > Reviewer: Ralph Droms > Review Date: 2016-08-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-11 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > > Summary: > > This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. > > The draft is well-written and appears to be ready for publication, except as > noted below. > > Major issues: > > Section 5, DNS Service Discovery, includes more details about DNS Service > Discovery (DNS-SD) than is necessary for this specification. > While it can be useful to repeat some specific details of another specification > for, there is a danger in writing too many details that may not be entirely in > agreement with the published specification. In the case of this document, I > suggest that section 5 be rewritten to just refer to DNS Service discovery, with > a minimum of explanation. > The example is useful ... although I think some of the details in the example > ought to be changed. The use of DNS-SD over unicast DNS and multicast DNS > can be mentioned in a sentence somewhere in section 5, as the use of DNS-SD > is otherwise identical. I would leave out section 5.1 altogether. > > Looking at the IANA "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number > Registry" > <www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names- > port-numbers.xhtml>, > I see that TURN is registered as using service name "turn", rather than > "turnserver" as in the example. Also in the example, the instance name > "example.com" might be problematic, as the instance is usually just a single > label. In fact, I interpret the text in the document to describe the instance > name as a single label. It might be worth experimenting to see how DNS-SD > libraries deal with a label like "example.com", or perhaps simply change > instance in the example to something like "exampleco TURN Server" Changed to "exampleco TURN Server" and used service names "turn" and "turns". > > Minor issues: > > Section 5 mentions the use of a TXT record to carry additional information > about the TURN service instance. Are there any conventions for the > name/value pairs carried in the TXT record? No conventions. > If not, I think there should be a > note that any name/value pairs in the TXT record are left to local definition. Okay, added following line: The TXT record can contain any key/value pairs left to the local definition. > > Editorial issues: > > I suggest using the example.com domain rather than local in the example for > clarity. Perhaps also change the intro sentence for the example: > > OLD: > For example, TURN server advertises the following DNS records : > NEW: > For example, the following DNS records would be used for a TURN server with > instance name "exampleco TURN Server" providing TURN service over UDP on > port 5030: Updated. > > > It would help readability if the columns in the DNS records in the example > could be lined up; something like (apologies if your mail reader changes the > column alignments and if I don't have the quoting right): > > _turnserver._udp.local. > PTR "exampleco TURN Server"._turn._udp.local. > > "exampleco TURN Server"._turn._udp.local. > SRV 0 0 5030 example-turn-server.local. > > example-turn-server.local. > A 198.51.100.2 > > example-turn-server.local. > AAAA 2001:db8:8:4::2 > > Similarly, it would help readability if the list of DNS records for S-NAPTR > resolution were formatted in aligned columns. Fixed. > > In section 3, does "on top of" mean "in addition to" or "instead of"? It means "in addition to". -Tiru