Hi Christer, Thanks for the review. Please see inline [TR]
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:45 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-08 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"? [TR] Yes, updated. ------------- Section 1: Q1_1: The text says "OAuth". Should it say "OAuth 2.0"? [TR] Yes, fixed. Q1_2: Please add an OAuth reference on first occurrence. [TR] Added Q1_3: I suggest to add a sentence, saying that the document also defines how to use OAuth with the TURN extension. [TR] Added the following line in introduction: Third party authorization using OAuth 2.0 for STUN explained in this specification can also be used with Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) [RFC5766]. ------------- 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". [TR] Removed. Q3_2: The text says: "The STUN token is returned in JSON" Should the text say "JSON format", "JSON syntax", or something similar? [TR] Updated to "JSON syntax" Q3_3: Please add a reference to JSON on first occurence. [TR] Added Q3_4: Where are the parameter names of the JSON message defined? [TR] The parameter names of the JSON message are defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution-00 Are the parameter names identical to the ones listed in section 6.2? [TR] It need not be identical, token structure is opaque to the client. Figure 3 does show an example, but there should be normative text. [TR] Figure 3 is moved to Appendix in the latest revision http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-09#appendix-B ------------- 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. [TR] Moved text to Section 9. ------------- Section 7: Q7_1: I suggest to change the section name to "STUN Server Procedures", or something like that. [TR] Changed to "STUN Server Behaviour" ------------- Section 8: Q8_1: I suggest to change the section name to "STUN Client Procedures", or something like that. [TR] Changed to "STUN Client Behaviour" Cheers, -Tiru ------------- Regards, Christer
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
