Subject: [straw] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 05:14:43 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15: Discuss

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-straw-b2bua-rtcp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

intro: Including the LI example in section 1 seems
wrong given RFC2804. And I don't see why you need it if
there are other justifications that are not controversial
in the IETF. Why not just delete that? (The problem with
including that justification in a standards track document
is that doing so goes entirely against RFC2804.)

But this should be an easy fix, via a revised ID or RFC
editor note.

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

- The security considerations section is pretty good,
thanks!

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:34:44 +0100

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 05:14:43 -0800
"Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> this introductory paragraph, however.)
> 

Hi Stephen,

thanks for reviewing the document!

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

Do you mean the part where we mention "[..] like billing, lawful
interception, session recording and so on [..]"? Do you think editing
the text to just leave "[..] like session recording and so on [..]"
would fix this, or is there other text that is breaking RFC2804? If you
believe this is best left to the RFC editors to amend, I'll add the note
as suggested.

Thanks!

Lorenzo

> 
> _______________________________________________
> straw mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:36:18 +0000

Hiya,

> believe this is best left to the RFC editors to amend, I'll add the note

Right, that's all that's needed I think.

S