Re: [AVTCORE] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Harald,

TL;DR: your ‘more palatable’ suggestion is perfect for me as it addresses my DISCUSS point (assuming that the sentences are replaced by your suggestion)

Else, see in-line for EV>

Regards

-éric

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 13 February 2024 at 14:51
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)



On 2/5/24 12:40, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Hello Bernard,

The SCIP specification was indeed provided to the IESG, thanks for that.

My remaining issue should be trivial to address, let me repeat it with other words. There are two assertions in the text about the security of SCIP:
- in the abstract: -`SCIP is an application layer protocol that provides ... security services such as confidentiality and integrity protection`
- in section 2, 4th paragraph: `The SCIP protocol defined in SCIP-210 [SCIP210] includes ... security services such as end-to-end confidentiality and integrity protection.`

Those claims have not been verified explicitly by the IETF community, i.e., they cannot appear like that in an IETF stream document.

This seems like a very finicky kind of requirement.

EV> we respectfully disagree.

Possibly a more palatable way of stating this would be "The SCIP protocol defined in SCIP-210 [SCIP210] states that it includes security services such as ..." - making it clear that this is a statement of what the non-IETF document claims, not about what the protocol actually provides.

EV> good suggestion

But in general, I find the argument about "IETF requires inspectability of the carried material" argument hard to follow - after all, TCP and UDP were explicitly defined not to make any claims about the bytes they carry.



EV> may I assume that the above is a reply to another ballot and not mine? Because I do not care about what an IETF protocol carries but I do care that the IETF does not make claims on something specified outside of the IETF.

As I suggested in my DISCUSS, restricting the claim by removing the implicit IETF support with statement like “The SCIP WG of ???” (with “???” being “NATO” or “US Department of Defense” or ...

Or even a clear disclaimer at the abstract/introduction (or an IESG note) with text such as “The IETF has not conducted a security review of SCIP and therefore has not verified the claims contained in this document”.

Regards

-éric



From: Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 2 February 2024 at 22:19
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eric said:

"Indeed, all IETF stream documents require that the IETF community was able to

review it. The nature of SCIP standard has prevented such review, therefore, it

is not possible for an IETF stream document to make those claims (that are
probably correct)."

[BA] As has been the case with other RTP payload specifications (e.g. EVC RTP Payload), arrangements were made to provide the SCIP specification to the IETF community.  I as well as other WG participants made requests for the SCIP specification and were provided with it.

Was an IESG member who requested the SCIP specification denied access?  If so, this is probably more of an oversight than an intentional denial.



On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 5:34 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-08: Discuss

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 https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05

Thank you for the work put into this document. Alas, even after some email
discussions with the authors, the core of my discuss is still there. So, I
cannot clear my discuss.

Previous DISCUSS is at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/xFC3Ux9AfYt3e5T0GSzrasQe_j4/

# DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

## Section 3 and abstract

I am afraid that without free and public access to the IETF community (whether
informational or normative) to the SCIP protocol itself, the IETF stream cannot
publish any document (even informational or experimental) with the following
assertions/claims:

- `SCIP is an application layer protocol that provides ... security services
such as confidentiality and integrity protection` - `The SCIP protocol defined
in SCIP-210 [SCIP210] includes ... security services such as end-to-end
confidentiality and integrity protection.`

Indeed, all IETF stream documents require that the IETF community was able to
review it. The nature of SCIP standard has prevented such review, therefore, it
is not possible for an IETF stream document to make those claims (that are
probably correct).

Suggest removing any such claim from the text or rephrasing them so that they
do not appear as an IETF claim, e.g., "NATO claims that..." or "NATO certifies
that ..."


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


# COMMENTS

## Abstract

Is there a reason why is SDP expanded and not RTP ?

## Section 1

Unsure whether the following text has a place into an IETF RFC `This document
provides a reference for network security policymakers, network equipment OEMs,
procurement personnel, and government agency and commercial industry
representatives.`. Suggest to remove it.

I wonder to wonder whether the USA has left NATO ? The text `SCIP is presently
implemented in United States and NATO` seems to indicate that the USA are not
included in NATO.

## Section 1.2

The DTX acronym is expanded twice and never used. Suggest to remove it.

## Section 2

Per `Secure Communication Interoperability Protocol (SCIP) allows the
negotiation of several voice, data, and video applications`, it appears that
SCIP can also be used for *data*, but this document is only about video/audio.
I.e., some text should explain to the reader what happens to the data.

Please explain what is a STANAG or provide an informational reference to STANAG
5068.

The reader will welcome explanations about the numbers in `scip/8000 and
scip/90000` (e.g., by a reference to section 5)

## Section 3.1

Should there be informative references for MELPe, G.729D ?

Is this subsection useful ? This document is about RTP payload and this
subsection is more fit for the SCIP endpoints themselves. But, I am neither a
transport nor an application expert, so, feel free to keep this subsection.

# NITS

The official name of the UNO member state is "United States of America" and not
simply "United States".






_______________________________________________

Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt