Hi Magnus, On 04/02/2012 05:00 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > On 2012-04-01 01:53, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for >> draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-07.txt >> >> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard, but I >> have a minor concern that you may like to address. >> >> Minor >> ===== >> >> * The document uses some addresses in the RFC1918 range as example >> addresses. It would be better to use addresses explicitly reserved for >> documentation (The document does indeed use these addresses as well). >> Specifically I would recommend replacing the RFC1918 address 10.0.1.4 >> with an address in the 203.0.113.0/24 range from RFC5735. >> > > Thanks for the review. > > I am very well aware of that I am using an none documentation range. The > point of the example is that it is an ICE and ECN SDP signalling > example. When using ICE (RFC5245) it is likely that an end-point will > have an private range address, either in the 10.0.0.0/8 or > 192.168.0.0/16 address in their candidate lists. Thus to keep the > example correct considering that the SDP represents a client attached to > a NATed network and have multiple candidates I do need to use a private > range address in this example or it would not make sense.
That makes sense. Too bad there is no documentation addresses set aside for denoting private space. Cheers Suresh _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
