Subject: [Sipbrandy] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 19:11:46 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Section 1.1.  Per “It is only to be used in existing deployments which are
attempting to transition to fully secure communications.  New applications and
new deployments will not use  OSRTP.”, I was expecting RFC2119 words for the
second sentence on the order of “New application … should not …”.

(2) Section 3.1.  Is there any value in creating a registry to manage the
possible “a=xxx” offer types?

(3) Editorial Nits:
Section 1.0. Extra space.  s/[RFC5939] ./[RFC5939]./
Section 1.0.  Expand OSRTP acronym on first use.  (done in title and abstract
but not in text) Section 3.  Typo.  s/oportunistic/opportunistic/