Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-08

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:21:14 -0600

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-08
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 2009-02-09
IETF LC End Date: 2009-02-09
IESG Telechat date: (not known)

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard. I have one minor comment and a few nits, reported below.

Major issues: None noted.

Minor issues:

4.2.1.  Verification of Delivery

   o  An algorithm to detect consistent failure of delivery of reduced-
      size RTCP MUST be used by any application using it.  The details
      of this algorithm are application dependent and therefore outside
      the scope of this document.

Spencer (minor): does it make sense to have a MUST for something that's out
of scope for this document, with no reference to any other document?

Nits/editorial comments:

1.  Introduction

   There are a number of benefits with reduced-size RTCP, these are
   discussed in Section 3.3.

Spencer (nit): s/RTCP,/RTCP;/

3.4.5.  Header Compression

   Two issues are related to header compression, possible changes are
   left for future work:

Spencer (nit): s/, possible/. Possible/

4.2.1.  Verification of Delivery

   o  The middle box issue is more difficult and here one will be
      required to use heuristics to determine if the reduced-size RTCP
      are delivered or not.  The methods detect successful delivery of
      reduced-size RTCP packets depends on the packet type.  The RTCP

Spencer (nit):s/methods detect/method used to detect/ (note that there are
missing words AND a numbering mismatch in this sentence).

      packet types for which successful delivery can be detected are:

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of RTP [RFC3550] and AVPF [RFC4585] will
   apply also to reduced-size RTCP.  The reduction in validation
   strength for received packets on the RTCP port may result in a higher
   degree of acceptance of spurious data as real RTCP.  This
   vulnerability can mostly be addressed by usage of any security
   mechanism that provide authentication, one example such mechanism is
   SRTP [RFC3711].

Spencer (nit): s/authentication, one example such/authentication; one such/

---

From: "Ingemar Johansson S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:35:37 +0100

Hi

Thanks for the comments, I will fix this later on as I get more
comments.

As regards to the minor issue in 4.2.1. I am not sure here, I would say
that it is important to stress that an application must verify that
delivery of reduced-size RTCP is successful. I would personally prefer a
MUST here.

Regards
Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: den 9 februari 2009 21:21
> To: Magnus Westerlund; Ingemar Johansson S
> Cc: [email-masked]; General Area Review Team
> Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-08
> 
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team 
> (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, 
> please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call 
> comments you may receive.
> 
> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a 
> Proposed Standard. I have one minor comment and a few nits, 
> reported below.
> 
> Spencer (minor): does it make sense to have a MUST for 
> something that's out of scope for this document, with no 
> reference to any other document?
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
> Spencer (nit):s/methods detect/method used to detect/ (note 
> that there are missing words AND a numbering mismatch in this 
> sentence).
>