On 2012-04-01 01:53, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for > draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-07.txt > > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard, but I > have a minor concern that you may like to address. > > Minor > ===== > > * The document uses some addresses in the RFC1918 range as example > addresses. It would be better to use addresses explicitly reserved for > documentation (The document does indeed use these addresses as well). > Specifically I would recommend replacing the RFC1918 address 10.0.1.4 > with an address in the 203.0.113.0/24 range from RFC5735. >
Thanks for the review. I am very well aware of that I am using an none documentation range. The point of the example is that it is an ICE and ECN SDP signalling example. When using ICE (RFC5245) it is likely that an end-point will have an private range address, either in the 10.0.0.0/8 or 192.168.0.0/16 address in their candidate lists. Thus to keep the example correct considering that the SDP represents a client attached to a NATed network and have multiple candidates I do need to use a private range address in this example or it would not make sense. Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
