Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22
review-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-02-04-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 26) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2017-02-09 | |
| Requested | 2017-01-26 | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-02-04 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -23 by Paul Wouters
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -22 by Brian Carpenter (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -23 by Martin Stiemerling (diff) Genart Telechat review of -23 by Brian Carpenter (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-02-04 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 22 (document currently at 26) | |
| Review result | Ready with Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2017-02-04 |
Review
review-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-02-04
Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22 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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2017-02-XX IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-09 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready with nits -------- Comments: --------- Two points I noted in the writeup: "There are existing implementations of earlier versions of the document..." Excellent, but I wonder why we don't see Implementation Status sections under RFC 6982 in more Last Call drafts. "IPv6 address examples are not necessary since IP version differences are immaterial to the purpose of the specification." It's just as easy to give an IPv6 example though, and more future proof. Minor issue: (almost a nit) ------------ > 1. Introduction ... > NOTE: Due to the characteristics of TCP, usage of 'TCP/DTLS/SCTP' > will always force ordered and reliable delivery of the SCTP packets, > which limits the usage of the SCTP options. Therefore, it is > RECOMMENDED that TCP is only used in situations where UDP traffic is > blocked. Why would one choose 'TCP/DTLS/SCTP' rather than just 'TCP/TLS'? I don't object to it being specified, but since you don't support multihoming or multiple associations, what is the use case, in a few words? Nits: ----- > 4.4.2. SDP Media Description values > > m= line parameter parameter value(s) > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > <media>: "application" > <proto>: "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" or "TCP/DTLS/SCTP" > <port>: UDP port number (for "UDP/DTLS/SCTP") > TCP port number (for ""UDP/DTLS/SCTP") I think the last line should be: TCP port number (for "TCP/DTLS/SCTP") There is some inconsistency in the use of quotation marks: "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" or 'UDP/DTLS/SCTP'