Subject: [straw] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:25:41 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15: 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-straw-b2bua-rtcp/

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

[1] As I understand it, a Media-Aware Relay is an instance of a RTP/RTCP
translator.  I'm wondering whether the behavior in 3.2 can/should be more
broadly applied to other types of translators, and not just to a
media-aware B2BUA.   ??   [Disclaimer:  I am out of my depth here...]

[2] The guidelines in 3.2 have a normative "MUST" attached to them: "...a
media-aware B2BUA MUST handle incoming RTCP messages to forward following
this guideline".  However, some of the references are not Normative.  I
assume that (as with the guidelines related to RFC3550) the text in 3.2
represents a behavior beyond what is described in the references, which
implies to me that those references should be Normative.  The solution
seems simple: move rfc3611, rfc5104, etc. to be Normative
references...but I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb is also referenced, which not
only expired 3 years ago, but it is marked as Experimental.  Can the
expected behavior from I-D.alvestrand-rmcat-remb be somehow defined in
this document so that the reference is not needed?