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-mmusic-ice-tcp-15
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Oct-31-2011
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat date: Nov-03-2011

Summary: This draft is ready as a Proposed Standard.

Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 2
Nits/editorial comments: 2

Minor issues:

- S1: The draft says, "This specification does so by following the
 outline of ICE itself, and calling out the additions and changes
 necessary in each section of ICE to support TCP candidates."

 Does this imply that this specification normatively updates
 rfc5425 (the ICE RFC)?  If so, this is not reflected in the
 masthead for the document as "Updates: RFC 5425".

- S4.1, last paragraph.  It says that, "TCP-based STUN transactions
 are paced out at one every Ta seconds."  However, rfc5245 Section
 16 says that, "These transactions are paced at a rate of one
 every Ta millisecond, ..."

 I suspect that in your draft, Ta refers to the same Ta as in
 rfc5245, so it seems to me that they should be paced one every
 Ta milliseconds to conform to rfc5245, no?

Nits:

- S3, in the sentence, "Stream-oriented transports introduce another
   wrinkle, since they require a way to frame the connection so that the
   application and STUN packets can be extracted in order to determine
   which is which."

   s/which is which/STUN packets from application layer traffic/

- S4.1,
 s/any assumptions that they make about deployments/any assumptions
 made about deployments/

Thanks,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg at {bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani at alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   

http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/