Mercurial > hg > ietf
comparison avt-cryptex-review.txt @ 0:0d405ad6709c
historical
| author | Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| date | Fri, 20 Oct 2023 14:43:42 +0100 |
| parents | |
| children |
comparison
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
| -1:000000000000 | 0:0d405ad6709c |
|---|---|
| 1 Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-cryptex-05 | |
| 2 Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard | |
| 3 Review type: artart - Last Call review | |
| 4 Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson | |
| 5 Review Date: 2022-04-05 | |
| 6 IETF Last Call Date: 2022-04-05 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 Summary: Almost Ready | |
| 9 | |
| 10 Caveat: I'm not a user of Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) | |
| 11 so am only reviewing this from a non-expert perspective. | |
| 12 | |
| 13 Minor points | |
| 14 | |
| 15 Section 5.2. Receiving | |
| 16 "The implementation MAY stop and report an error if it | |
| 17 considers use of this specification mandatory for the RTP stream." | |
| 18 | |
| 19 This reads oddly to me, as if it was originally written with 'may' | |
| 20 rather than 'MAY'. I think what is meant is more like the following: | |
| 21 | |
| 22 Alternatively, in the presence of extensions but the absence of a | |
| 23 matching value, an implementation MAY signal that it requires use | |
| 24 of this specification by stopping and signalling an error. | |
| 25 | |
| 26 6.1 Packet Structure | |
| 27 | |
| 28 I _think_ this diagram combines parts of diagrams taken from 3711 | |
| 29 (Section 3.1 Figure 1) and 8285 (section 4.2). The latter is an | |
| 30 _example_, and as such the "length=3" in the 6th line of the diagram | |
| 31 doesn't really belong in something labelled generically "the SRTP | |
| 32 packet is protected as follows", which seems to imply that what | |
| 33 follows is a template for all such packets. | |
| 34 | |
| 35 Not sure whether the best way to fix this is by expanding the label | |
| 36 ("for example an SRTP packet with 3 header extensions would be protected as | |
| 37 follows") or by replacing "length=3" with something like "[number of | |
| 38 extension headers]". | |
| 39 | |
| 40 Nits | |
| 41 | |
| 42 A number of acronyms are not glossed at first use, e.g. SRTP, SSRC, CSRC. | |
| 43 If anyone reading this RFC can be expect to be familiar with them | |
| 44 perhaps that's OK... | |
| 45 | |
| 46 Section 9.1 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 Is there a line break or two missing [in the plain text version] | |
| 49 here-------------------------- | |
| 50 | | |
| 51 v | |
| 52 as described in this document. O/A procedures: SDP O/A procedures |