Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp-15

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:48:44 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp-15
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Oct-31-2011
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat date: Nov-03-2011

Summary: This draft is ready as a Proposed Standard.

Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 2
Nits/editorial comments: 2

Minor issues:

- S1: The draft says, "This specification does so by following the
  outline of ICE itself, and calling out the additions and changes
  necessary in each section of ICE to support TCP candidates."

  Does this imply that this specification normatively updates
  rfc5425 (the ICE RFC)?  If so, this is not reflected in the
  masthead for the document as "Updates: RFC 5425".

- S4.1, last paragraph.  It says that, "TCP-based STUN transactions
  are paced out at one every Ta seconds."  However, rfc5245 Section
  16 says that, "These transactions are paced at a rate of one
  every Ta millisecond, ..."

  I suspect that in your draft, Ta refers to the same Ta as in
  rfc5245, so it seems to me that they should be paced one every
  Ta milliseconds to conform to rfc5245, no?

Nits:

- S3, in the sentence, "Stream-oriented transports introduce another
    wrinkle, since they require a way to frame the connection so that the
    application and STUN packets can be extracted in order to determine
    which is which."

    s/which is which/STUN packets from application layer traffic/

- S4.1,
  s/any assumptions that they make about deployments/any assumptions
  made about deployments/

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 00:10:45 +0100

Hi Vijay,

Thanks for the review! See inline.

>    masthead for the document as "Updates: RFC 5425".

Actually no. These additions are specific to TCP so the (UDP) ICE RFC is 
not updated. In an effort to keep this draft reasonably compact, only 
the delta from the RFC5245 is defined. So, when something is not defined 
here, the behavior defined in RFC5245 is assumed.

>    Ta milliseconds to conform to rfc5245, no?

This one is a bit tricky since even RFC5245 is not consistent with this 
(e.g., section 5.8. of RFC5245 says "Ta seconds later", and section 
16.1. is even more vague). We chose to use "seconds" so that the 
formulas in 16.1. of 5245 would have right units, but actually in the 
text 5245 does use "milliseconds" more often. I'm fine either way but 
since you found this confusing, probably the milliseconds is a better 
choice.

>      s/which is which/STUN packets from application layer traffic/

OK.

>    s/any assumptions that they make about deployments/any assumptions

OK. We'll fix these in the next revision.

Thanks,
Ari