Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] WGLC: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-04 - Christer's review

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 07:58:00 +0000

Hi,

Below is my WGLC review.

I base my review based on the assumption that the associated MMUSIC draft
is not going to be progressed, and that draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp is the
ONLY deliverable related to OSRTP and SDP O/A.

Also, some of my comments is repeating what I have said previously, but I
include them in my review in order to have everything in one place.

GENERAL:
--------

QG_1: The draft will be published as an Informational RFC (I know the
reason, so no need to discuss that). Because of that, many SDOs will not
be able to normatively reference it. So, if such SDO wants to adopt SDP
O/A procedures of OSRTP (I know there are SDOs, or at least SDO members,
interested in OSRTP), they would have to ³re-define² the procedures
themselves.

I wonder whether it would be useful to include some text/guidance
regarding that in the document, i.e., recommending that such procedures
are based on the procedures in the draft, for interoperability purpose etc?

QG_2: There are no BUNDLE considerations. Even though it may seem obvious,
I think it would be useful to indicate that the same security selection
needs to be applied to all RTP-based m- sections within a BUNDLE group.

Section 1:
----------

Q1_1: Shall we really reference individual drafts that will not progress?
Couldn¹t we simply talk about ³based on previous work and studies done by
Hadriel Kaplan" 

Section 3:
----------

Q3_1: I don¹t understand the title of the section. Shouldn¹t it be ³SDP
Offer/Answer Procedures²?

Q3_2: Eventhough the document is Informational, since Section 3 does
contain O/A text I think it should be done properly, describing how the
offer is generated, how the answer is generated etc.

Q3_3: There is no text on subsequent offers. If security has been
negotiated in a previous O/A exchange, what profile values etc do I
include in subsequent offers?

Section 4:
----------

Q4_1: Doesn¹t the last paragraph belong in the Applicability section?

Regards,

Christer

On 19/04/18 14:21, "Sipbrandy on behalf of Gonzalo Camarillo"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]>
wrote:

>Folks,
>
>I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will
>end on May 10th:
>
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-04
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gonzalo
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sipbrandy mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy