Subject: [clue] Fwd: [rtcweb] AD review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:06:27 -0500

FYI...since this document is a dependency for the
draft-ietf-clue-datachannel, it would be good for folks to review the
RTCWEB document alongside the clue data channel document during IETF Last
Call which is basically our last chance to provide any input.

Regards,
Mary.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:27 PM
Subject: [rtcweb] AD review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked]

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF LC.  In general, it
looks good, and I have requested LC.  There are some comments below that
should be addressed along with IETF LC comments.
--Richard

MAJOR:

Section 4. "To avoid glare..."
The term "glare" is undefined in this document, and will probably be
unfamiliar to many readers.  Please add it to the Terminology section.

Section 4. "When using SCTP over DTLS..."
This qualification is unnecessary, since data channels always use
SCTP/DTLS/UDP:
"""
   The DTLS encapsulation of SCTP packets as described in
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps] MUST be used.
"""
So this should be "Since data channels use the DTLS encapsulation of
SCTP..."

Section 6. "... all parameters in the DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message are valid"
The receiver MUST fail if the parameters are invalid, but you never define
what validation needs to be performed.  For example, is the DCEP layer
supposed to verify that the Protocol and Label fields are valid UTF-8?

Section 10.2. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
This reference needs to be normative, since, after all, this is a protocol
for negotiating data channels.

MINOR / EDITORIAL:

Section 5.1. [packet diagram]
The diagram seems to imply that the protocol field starts on a 4-octet
boundary, even though this is not true.  It might be good if you could find
a way to reformat the diagram to make this clearer.

Section 5.1. "The suggested value of this field for IANA is 0x03"
You're defining the initial contents of this registry.  Just say it.
Likewise for the same text in Section 5.2.

Section 6. "an Stream identifier" -> "a stream identifier"

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