Subject: [tram] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:43:13 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-10: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, this version helps, and I am clearing my DISCUSS. (I assume
Spencer will figure out the Right Thing to do to make sure the update to
5766 gets the right review.)

I have a few minor comments on the resulting text. None of these are
showstoppers:

- Absrtact: Please mention that this draft updates 5766 to relax the
requirement for authentication in certain cases in the abstract.

- 9, 2nd paragraph, "Making STUN authentication OPTIONAL ..."

Since  you already used a 2119 MAY in the previous paragraph, there's no
need for the 2119 OPTIONAL here. (In general, 2119 keywords should be
used to state requirements, not talk about existing requirements)

-9, third paragraph:
I saw a comment on my DISCUSS email thread from Karl Stahl, stating that
DTLS could not be mandated. Has that input been considered? (I don't have
an opinion; I just want to make sure people noticed the comment.)

-9, 9th paragraph: "Instead, with an explicit administrator choice, a
TURN client SHOULD fall-back to encryption-only (D)TLS when (D)TLS
authentication is not available."
I’m not sure what SHOULD means after adding the explicit choice part.
Does that means the administrator SHOULD make that choice? Is the point
that you can fall back, but MUST NOT do so without explicit choice?

-9, 10th paragraph:
-- The first sentence is now redundant with the previous paragraph.
-- is the point of the first part of the second sentence that you MUST
NOT fall back without explicit choice? (similar to for server
authentication?)