Subject: [tram] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-stun-origin-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:04:21 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tram-stun-origin-05: 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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-stun-origin/

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

I agree with all 3 points of Barry's discuss.

I think the normative language in section 2.1 is ambiguous about whether
it applies to all stun implementations used by a browser, SIP, or XMPP,
or just those that "implement this draft". A thoughtful reader can infer
the answer from the fact that the draft does not update STUN, but it
might be helpful to clarify.

[Removed some comments that have been explained to my satisfaction]

Nits:

-- Section 1: 

I agree with Barry that the first reference to STUN should probably go in
the previous sentence.

Should reference to " Section 4.5 of [RFC7376]" really be 4.6"? 4.5 talks
about a MiTM learning USERNAME.  4.6 talks about hosting multiple realms
from the same IP address. (And as Barry mentioned, these are really "List
entries 5 or 6 in Section 4")