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 protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
