Subject: [tsvwg] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:26:38 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that Stephen's DISCUSS needs to be sorted out.

I've a couple of minor comments on a paragraph in Section 1:

   This encapsulation of SCTP over DTLS over or UDP or ICE/UDP (see
   [RFC5245]) can provide a NAT traversal solution together with
   confidentiality, source authentication, and integrity protected
   transfers.

Is there a protocol missing before the first "or", or does the first "or"
need to be deleted (the latter, I think)?

The phrase "together with" implies that something else is needed (as in
"X, together with Y, provides Z").  Does the sentence mean to say that
<this encapsulation> can provide [a NAT traversal solution that includes
confidentiality, source authentication, and integrity-protected
transfers]?  Or does it mean to say that <this encapsulation> can provide
a NAT traversal solution, as well as confidentiality, source
authentication, and integrity-protected transfers]?  I think it's one of
those.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:50:00 +0100

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps/
Hi Barry,

thank you very much for your review. Please see my comments in-line.

Best regards
Michael
> I agree that Stephen's DISCUSS needs to be sorted out.
That has been done.
> need to be deleted (the latter, I think)?
It needs to be deleted.
> authentication, and integrity-protected transfers]?  I think it's one of
What about:

<t>This encapsulation of SCTP over DTLS over UDP or ICE/UDP
(see <xref target='RFC5245'/>) can provide a NAT traversal
solution in addition to confidentiality, source authentication, and
integrity protected transfers.</t>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:15:59 -0500

Hi, Michael.  Thanks for the response.

>>   confidentiality, source authentication, and integrity protected
...
> integrity protected transfers.</t>

Yep, that looks fine.  Thanks.

Barry