[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-08

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 05 February 2015 16:15 UTC

From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-08
Thread-Index: AdBBWLG6MnzMChDCQa2boF6zdBt8wQ==
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:15:17 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D693A60@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D693A60ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/U-WCtg0L-2xLrYII75SZhheUGHw>
Cc: "draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-08
Precedence: list

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>

Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-08.txt

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg

Review Date: 5 February 2015

IETF LC End Date: 4 January 2015

IETF Telechat Date: 19 February 2015

Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, I do have some editorial comments, which I request to authors to address.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial nits: See below

-------------

General:

QGEN_1: The text says "OAuth". Should it say "OAuth 2.0"?

-------------

Section 1:

Q1_1: The text says "OAuth". Should it say "OAuth 2.0"?

Q1_2: Please add an OAuth reference on first occurrence.

Q1_3: I suggest to add a sentence, saying that the document also defines how to use OAuth with the TURN extension.

-------------

Section 3:

Q3_1: The text says:

"In the future STUNbis [I-D.ietf-tram-stunbis] will support hash
agility and accomplish this agility by conveying the HMAC algorithms
supported by the STUN server along with a STUN error message to the
client."

I suggest to remove "In the future STUNbis".

Q3_2: The text says:

"The STUN token is returned in JSON"

Should the text say "JSON format", "JSON syntax", or something similar?

Q3_3: Please add a reference to JSON on first occurence.

Q3_4: Where are the parameter names of the JSON message defined? Are the parameter names identical to the ones listed in section 6.2? Figure 3 does show an example, but there should be normative text.

-------------

Section 4:

Q4_1: The section gives an example using a TURN server. But, before that TURN has not been mentioned, and TURN usage is not described until section 9.

In addition, I don't think the example even belongs in this section, which is only about obtaining the access token. I suggest to move the example to section 9.

-------------

Section 7:

Q7_1: I suggest to change the section name to "STUN Server Procedures", or something like that.

-------------

Section 8:

Q8_1: I suggest to change the section name to "STUN Client Procedures", or something like that.

-------------

Regards,

Christer

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-t… Christer Holmberg
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-t… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-t… Christer Holmberg
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-t… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-… Christer Holmberg