Hi, Christer, > On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > Thanks for your review! Please see inline. Anytime — thanks for the follow-up! > >> Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro >> Review result: Has Nits >> >> This document is very comprehensive. Operational Considerations are >> adequately covered. >> >> In reviewing this document, I did find two adjacent issues that I >> thought useful to comment on: >> >> 1. Clarity and Readability of Section 9 >> >> I appreciate the explicit OLD/NEW details and specifics on what is >> changed on the updated RFCs. I wish more documents would do this! >> >> However, the way in which this is done is very confusing and not >> really optimizing clarity and readability. It is an operational issue >> an implementor not understanding the spec :-) >> >> The issue, in my view, is with the labels and markers. Subsections of >> Section 9.2 do not follow the semantic structure of the document. >> Instead they are included as follows: >> " >> Update to section 5: >> -------------------- >> " >> Which are then followed by OLD/NEW chunks. However, these chunks: >> * include Section numbers and titles, >> * do not have extra indentation, and >> * include only BEGIN marker but not END marker. >> >> Like: >> >> 9.2. Update to RFC 5763 >> Update to section 5: >> -------------------- >> OLD TEXT: >> 5. Establishing a Secure Channel >> >> [... and then, two pages later ...] >> >> NEW TEXT: >> 5. Establishing a Secure Channel >> >> I'd suggest: >> a. Using Section 9.2.1, 9.2.2, etc. for each change. > > I can put each section change in a separate section. > > 9.2.1 Update to section 5 > 9.2.2 Update to section 6.6 > ... > > Or, do you want to have the old and new text in different sections too? Personally I would like to keep the old and new text in the same section. I agree. Having a section for each change chunk (OLD/NEW) seems most clean and clear. > >> b. Use more explicit chunk demarkators > > It was been suggested to use "|". > >> c. Use beginning and ending markers. > > [BEGIN] > Blah blah blah... > [END] > > ---------- Thank you — any format that you feel will add clarity. Right now it was a bit challenging to parse. > >> 2. The second issue, and likely this was discussed, relates to the use >> of RFC 4572. A reference to RFC 4572 is Normative, and it is cited >> within "NEW" text (not only "OLD" text). However RFC 4572 has been >> Obsoleted by RFC 8122! >> >> This is because draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update published as RFC 8122, >> which should be updated. > > Correct. I will do that in the next version. Ack. Thanks. > >> But for example, why does NEW text here still points to RFC 4572? > > The reason is probably that, initially draft-4572-update did not obsolete RFC 4572 - it simply updated it. But, later it was agreed that draft-4572-update will obsolete RFC 4572, but that was not reflected in draft-dtls-sdp. > > So, you are correct, the new text shall point to RFC 8122. I will fix that in the next version. > Perfect. > --------- > >> --->8--- >> NEW TEXT: >> >> 5. Establishing a Secure Channel >> >> The two endpoints in the exchange present their identities as part >> of the DTLS handshake procedure using certificates. This document >> uses certificates in the same style as described in "Connection-Oriented >> Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol >> in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)" [RFC4572]. >> --->8--- >> >> And why RFC 4572 is Normatively referenced? > > I will make the reference Informative. > Looks good — thanks again, — Carlos. > Thanks! > > Regards, > > Christer >