[apps-discuss] Apps directorate review of draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-5.txt
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 16 August 2013 17:04 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C1E11E8186; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g70XegKnposM; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com (mail-ie0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434BF11E8174; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w15so3775380iea.19 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lt45mtsEGFFp3SHvLet/POaM8kKKj/yjzDGh+oChKig=; b=hN5SPGVf85kvU8aEWEXb5ho81msg9VasPUBkqUwkEisvD1cDKCugHRX7iiDbIm5gmy n3jpeKloMP8SVsaDXBEnQLKK9z3q+1Aq+yx8Uu+5t8jCKgXnsTwqRaMDh5hnXeKqfmS0 FgsmYoRoPs8rcheCNv1Yl/G6enAMdfcQU+V1oBpljzRpdwl+DvHNz3VYHxmEa+cMa0OX kf3vvkvzNBkQOQ3W/stSU6ZsB7NWpifLvbZWhYppDvRf38ho4xWrSmE5I0luCbIZ4tgz 5gfIWkRl7I7eewzB4oztXl8fZvlcIS5T8LmS+1hBVdLS4z6V0Z2u5lmx6cKFHjDhhQS1 8bKQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.127.199 with SMTP id j7mr1353361ics.20.1376672691888; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.29.202 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:04:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBD6XNNaJm0qBCm_isi-u-yKU_PJx-BJGVUoTLAPxGirA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri.all@tools.ietf.org, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3010e99fc5ac4104e413967b"
Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps directorate review of draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-5.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:04:53 -0000
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-5.txt Title: URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol Reviewer: Ted Hardie Review Date: August 16th, 2013 Summary: This document is ready to be published as an informational RFC; it currently gives a target of standards track, but I do not believe this is required. Discussion: The draft has had some discussion in response to comments by Graham Klyne, the Designated Expert for URI schemes. I personally believe that this document has sufficient utility to qualify for permanent registration, both in the WebRTC context and potentially in similar contexts. I also am not terribly worried that it duplicates the ABNF of RFC 3986; while it certainly could have done it differently, the chances of drift in definition in this case seem low enough to be harmless. Nit: The document recommends removal of the implementation status section, but not the appendices, including the one which gives the design rationale. I'd either move the implementation status to an appendix and keep the all, or remove them all. But this is obviously an editorial choice, not a substantive issue.
- [apps-discuss] Apps directorate review of draft-n… Ted Hardie
- Re: [apps-discuss] Apps directorate review of dra… Gonzalo Salgueiro