Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:26:30 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-13
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2016-10-03
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-10
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

Major Concerns: I wonder if this ought to be a standards-track document.
  I recognize that the STRAW WG charter calls for a standards-track
  document, but it only contains a handfull of MUST statements that are
  not repeats from another RFC.  Maybe this document should become a
  Best Current Practice (BCP) instead of a standards-track document.

Minor Concerns: In Section 3.1, it says:

   ... It SHOULD NOT, though, forward SDP
   attributes that may lead to call failures (e.g., candidates,
   fingerprints, crypto, etc.) for different reasons out of scope to
   this document. ...

This SHOULD NOT statement if a bit vague.  The previous sentence lists
specific attributes, and I see why that might be difficult to match
here, but it does not tell an implementer what attributes to not
forward.

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:46:21 +0200

Hello Russ,

sorry for this late reply... thanks for reviewing the document! As to
the points you raised in your review, I've added a couple of comments
inline.

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:26:30 -0400
Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Major Concerns: I wonder if this ought to be a standards-track
> document. I recognize that the STRAW WG charter calls for a
> standards-track document, but it only contains a handfull of MUST
> statements that are not repeats from another RFC.  Maybe this
> document should become a Best Current Practice (BCP) instead of a
> standards-track document.
> 

The standards-track scope of the document was also addressed and
discussed on the STRAW ML before LC, you can find the related
discussion here:

    https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00579.html 

which lead to no objection to keep the document's scope as it is. Do
you believe the scope should change nevertheless?

> here, but it does not tell an implementer what attributes to not

The SHOULD NOT statement is indeed a bit vague, but that's due to the
dynamic nature of SDP attributes, and the fact that new ones could be
added at any time. We tried to clarify what we meant by listing some of
the categories that, messed with improperly, could cause issues (the
candidates, fingerprints, crypto we mention in brackets), but an
exhaustive list is unfortunately impossible. Do you believe that making
the enumeration in brackets clearer, e.g.:

	(e.g., attributes listing candidates, fingerprints, crypto,
	etc.)

would make the sentence clearer, or do you still think that would need
work? Do you have any suggestion on how to improve the text here?

Thanks!
Lorenzo