Subject: [Ietf-behave] draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-04 - comments

From: Vladimir Marek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:03:04 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Jonathan,

I would like to draw your attention to some unclear places or small 
mistakes.

1) Page 11, chapter 6, first paragraph, sentence "The STUN header 
contains a STUN message type, transaction ID, and length". I would also 
add magic cookie into this list.
New version could be - "The STUN header contains a STUN message type, 
magic cookie, transaction ID, and length."

2) Page 13, third paragraph on page, sentence "After the STUN header are 
zero or more attributes." IMHO it is in conflict with figure 4 on page 
28 and also with description of attribute FINGERPRINT ("The FINGERPRINT 
attribute is present in all STUN message").
Suggested version - "After the STUN header there are one or more 
attributes."

3) Page 13, fourth line from the end. Typing error - btyes -> bytes

4) Page 25, chapter 9.1.2., first paragraph, last sentence "If the STUN 
response is a success response, the STUN server adds 0x110 to the 
Message Type of the request."
The success response is described in previous sentence and this sentence 
should contain error case.
Suggestion - "If the STUN response is an error response, the STUN server 
adds 0x110 to the Message Type of the request."

5) Page 32, error code for Stale Nonce (438). I guess that the error 
code should be 437 as it is in draft 03 instead of 438. I don't see any 
reason to skip code 437.

6) Page 33, chapter 11.10., second paragraph, sentence "This attribute 
MUST always be present in a Binding Response ... ".
Maybe it would be good to mention case when the magic cookie is not 
present in a header (previous version of specification).
Suggestion - use same description from third paragraph, in chapter 
9.1.2. on page 25.

7) Page 33, chapter 11.10. It's not clear to me when the XORing of port 
should be performed - before converting port number from host to network 
order or after this conversion? I would expect that before but it is not 
evident from that description.

Kind regards,
 Vlada

---

From: Stephen Zhou <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:35:57 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Vladimir,

> code should be 437 as it is in draft 03 instead of 438. I don't see any 

437 has been used for TURN-01.

BR,
Stephen