Subject: [tram] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 06:58:21 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-09: 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-tram-turn-server-discovery/

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

= Section 6 =

"Using the TURN
   anycast address, the only two things that need to be deployed in the
   network are the two things that actually use TURN."

This is a bit opaque. I would suggest adding the qualifier "for
discovery" somewhere in this sentence.

= Section 7.2 =

"WebRTC endpoints SHOULD treat any TURN server discovered through the
mechanisms described in this specification as an enterprise/gateway
server, in accordance with Recursively Encapsulated TURN
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-return]."
 
I think this needs to be re-phrased to include auto-discovery of a TURN
server hosted by any access network, not just an enterprise network.

= Section 9 =

"Any discovered TURN server
   outside the criteria is considered untrusted and is not used for
   privacy sensitive communication."
   
This is stated as a fact, but I would have thought it's more of a
recommendation to implementers, e.g., servers outside the criteria ought
to be considered untrusted and therefore not used.

---

From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:24:40 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:28 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Simon Perreault
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-
> discovery-09: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
> This is a bit opaque. I would suggest adding the qualifier "for discovery"
> somewhere in this sentence.

Added.

> mechanisms described in this specification as an enterprise/gateway server,
> in accordance with Recursively Encapsulated TURN [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-return]."
> 
> I think this needs to be re-phrased to include auto-discovery of a TURN server
> hosted by any access network, not just an enterprise network.

Yes, updated.

> recommendation to implementers, e.g., servers outside the criteria ought to
> be considered untrusted and therefore not used.

Okay, fixed.

Cheers,
-Tiru