Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-04
review-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-04-secdir-lc-harrington-2014-02-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2014-02-04
Requested 2014-01-23
Authors Ali Begen, Colin Perkins
Draft last updated 2014-02-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by David Harrington (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by David Harrington (diff)
Assignment Reviewer David Harrington
State Completed
Review review-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-04-secdir-lc-harrington-2014-02-06
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-02-06

Review
review-ietf-avtext-rtp-duplication-04-secdir-lc-harrington-2014-02-06

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

From a security perspective, I believe this draft is Ready for publication.

Comments:

I am not an expert is RTP, RTCP, and related protocols. I assume this is a valid extension based largely on the authorship by Ali Begen, and suggestions by Magnus Westerlund.

I have a concern with section 3.4, which lists two states that are REQUIRED to exist for this specification, and then discusses that other approaches could work but would require an additional specification. Doesn't that make this appropriate for SHOULD rather than REQUIRED terminology?

in section 4.2, "We require …"; does the protocol specification REQUIRE this?

s/section section/section/

David Harrington

ietfdbh at comcast.net