RE: Review of draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,
Thanks for the review
Inline
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: =?utf-
> 8?b?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVyIDxqLnNjaG9lbndhZWxkZXJAamFj?=
> @ietfa.amsl.com [mailto:=?utf-
> 8?b?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVyIDxqLnNjaG9lbndhZWxkZXJAamFj?=
> @ietfa.amsl.com]
> Sent: יום ג 03 ינואר 2017 13:50
> To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: clue@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping.all@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10
> 
> Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> I do not see any major OPS related issues. While reading the document, I
> found a number of things the authors should look into:
> 
> - Consider to expand SDP and perhaps CLUE in the abstract
[Roni Even] OK
> 
> - Having both CaptureId and CaptureID in 5.1 is a bit confusing (since
>   the two identifiers only differ by the capitalization of the last
>   character)
[Roni Even] I will change it
> 
> - Both nXML mode in emacs and xmlint indicate that the xml in section
>   6 is invalid. Please check. (It could also be an issue with my tools
>   and the namespaces but then also the indentation looks at least
>   somewhat surprising.
[Roni Even] This are partial examples from the clue data model document just to show the relevant part. They were not meant to be valid xml , I can add text to explain this
> 
> - Is the RFC editor expected to	replace XX in the drawing in section
>   5.1 with the value assigned for TBA? If so, I think this needs to be
>   documented somewhere.
[Roni Even] OK
> 
> - Is 'roni.even@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' is a long term stable identifier
>   for the 'Contact' field of the RTP SDES Compact Header Extensions
>   subregistry?
[Roni Even] I will provide a better email address
> 
> - Security considerations, last	paragraph: What	is 'a lot of trust'?
>   Why is the SHOULD not	a MUST?
[Roni Even] I agree, it is also a passive language
Old text
"In multi-party communication scenarios using RTP Middleboxes, a lot of trust is placed on these middleboxes to preserve the sessions security"
New text
"In multi-party communication scenarios using RTP Middleboxes; these middleboxes are trusted to preserve the sessions security"

As for the "SHOULD maintain" it may depend on application policies (for example allowing users with different security levels into a multipoint conference)

> 
> - s/CaptureIDis/CaptureID is/g
[Roni Even] OK
> 
> - According to idnits, there are RFCs listed in the references that
>   are not cited in the text; please pay attention to idnits reports
[Roni Even] OK
> 





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]