Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-non-compound-08 Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins Review Date: 2009-02-09 IETF LC End Date: 2009-02-09 IESG Telechat date: (not known) Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. I have one minor comment and a few nits, reported below. Major issues: None noted. Minor issues: 4.2.1. Verification of Delivery o An algorithm to detect consistent failure of delivery of reduced- size RTCP MUST be used by any application using it. The details of this algorithm are application dependent and therefore outside the scope of this document. Spencer (minor): does it make sense to have a MUST for something that's out of scope for this document, with no reference to any other document? Nits/editorial comments: 1. Introduction There are a number of benefits with reduced-size RTCP, these are discussed in Section 3.3. Spencer (nit): s/RTCP,/RTCP;/ 3.4.5. Header Compression Two issues are related to header compression, possible changes are left for future work: Spencer (nit): s/, possible/. Possible/ 4.2.1. Verification of Delivery o The middle box issue is more difficult and here one will be required to use heuristics to determine if the reduced-size RTCP are delivered or not. The methods detect successful delivery of reduced-size RTCP packets depends on the packet type. The RTCP Spencer (nit):s/methods detect/method used to detect/ (note that there are missing words AND a numbering mismatch in this sentence). packet types for which successful delivery can be detected are: 6. Security Considerations The security considerations of RTP [RFC3550] and AVPF [RFC4585] will apply also to reduced-size RTCP. The reduction in validation strength for received packets on the RTCP port may result in a higher degree of acceptance of spurious data as real RTCP. This vulnerability can mostly be addressed by usage of any security mechanism that provide authentication, one example such mechanism is SRTP [RFC3711]. Spencer (nit): s/authentication, one example such/authentication; one such/