ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-stun-dtls-03

2014-06-23 12:39:54
Hi Roni,

See my answers below.

On 6/23/14, 7:28 AM, Roni Even wrote:
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-tram-stun-dtls-03

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014-6-23

IETF LC End Date: 2014-6-25

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Standard track
RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

I am not sure I understand section 4.3. When talking about "media keep-alive
packets" is it for the STUN Binding Indication usage or for all the options
in section 10 of RFC 5245.  

Yes, only the STUN Binding Indication usage.  You are right this is not
clear.

Maybe you meant that you should prefer DTLS/SRTP
keep-alive like RTP no-op in this case. I had problem understanding this
section. Please clarify.


No the text did not meant to choose one over the other, just to explain
the pros and cons of running the STUN Binding Indication usage over DTLS.

I propose this new text:

"  When STUN is being used for media keep-alive (described in Section
   10 of [RFC5245]), it runs alongside an RTP or RTCP session.  It is
   possible to send the media keep-alive packets inside a separately
   negotiated non-SRTP DTLS session if DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] is used, but
   that would add overhead, with minimal security benefit."

Thanks.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Developer  |  Jive Communications, Inc.
Jive.com  |  marcph(_at_)getjive(_dot_)com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>