Hi
Thanks for the comments, I will fix this later on as I get more
comments.
As regards to the minor issue in 4.2.1. I am not sure here, I would say
that it is important to stress that an application must verify that
delivery of reduced-size RTCP is successful. I would personally prefer a
MUST here.
Regards
Ingemar
-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org]
Sent: den 9 februari 2009 21:21
To: Magnus Westerlund; Ingemar Johansson S
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; General Area Review Team
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-08
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART,
please see 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.
Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-08
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 2009-02-09
IETF LC End Date: 2009-02-09
IESG Telechat date: (not known)
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a
Proposed Standard. I have one minor comment and a few nits,
reported below.
Major issues: None noted.
Minor issues:
4.2.1. Verification of Delivery
o An algorithm to detect consistent failure of delivery
of reduced-
size RTCP MUST be used by any application using it. The details
of this algorithm are application dependent and
therefore outside
the scope of this document.
Spencer (minor): does it make sense to have a MUST for
something that's out of scope for this document, with no
reference to any other document?
Nits/editorial comments:
1. Introduction
There are a number of benefits with reduced-size RTCP, these are
discussed in Section 3.3.
Spencer (nit): s/RTCP,/RTCP;/
3.4.5. Header Compression
Two issues are related to header compression, possible changes are
left for future work:
Spencer (nit): s/, possible/. Possible/
4.2.1. Verification of Delivery
o The middle box issue is more difficult and here one will be
required to use heuristics to determine if the reduced-size RTCP
are delivered or not. The methods detect successful delivery of
reduced-size RTCP packets depends on the packet type. The RTCP
Spencer (nit):s/methods detect/method used to detect/ (note
that there are missing words AND a numbering mismatch in this
sentence).
packet types for which successful delivery can be detected are:
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations of RTP [RFC3550] and AVPF
[RFC4585] will
apply also to reduced-size RTCP. The reduction in validation
strength for received packets on the RTCP port may result
in a higher
degree of acceptance of spurious data as real RTCP. This
vulnerability can mostly be addressed by usage of any security
mechanism that provide authentication, one example such
mechanism is
SRTP [RFC3711].
Spencer (nit): s/authentication, one example
such/authentication; one such/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf