Re: [AVTCORE] WG last call on draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 25 March 2013 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE84021E8087 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2PxGlPn4UDq0 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912CC21F901F for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f316d0000028db-4c-51507648cb68
Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 75.45.10459.84670515; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:07:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:07:36 +0100
Message-ID: <51507647.1050802@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:07:35 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avt@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis@tools.ietf.org
References: <513F7C5B.5060101@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <513F7C5B.5060101@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3RtejLCDQYPNXOYuXPSvZLU5PuMfo wOSxZMlPJo8vlz+zBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGWcfraeqeCuWMWSty8ZGxhnCXUxcnJICJhI 3Oh9wwRhi0lcuLeerYuRi0NI4CSjRPvsKSwQznJGiQ2/prGCVPEKaEt0z5zPCGKzCKhKnH4/ gRnEZhOwkLj5o5ENxBYVCJb4+eoMC0S9oMTJmU+AbA4OEQFrial//UHCwgIuEv8mPQAbIwQ0 cvXdr2A2p4COxPpby1kgDpKU2PKinR3EZhbQk5hytYURwpaXaN46mxmmt6Gpg3UCo+AsJNtm IWmZhaRlASPzKkb23MTMnPRyw02MwJA8uOW37g7GU+dEDjFKc7AoifOGuV4IEBJITyxJzU5N LUgtii8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cBo/Hp2ZNe+4+c33WV4yJ34Om2ORciSZXEmnQ3vFs5066wVjN8r VWui8nTGBsPpqnMZOiaoaO9I9Jpyr039ytxy+3MKLsIaU4yXKcZE/2P/9CF5v8yX0JNC/03U uosfrOkxaLaet+GrxGklnna5joxvl7eefN3px1PNb+cSJZpirSF6ZOH790eUWIozEg21mIuK EwELZaafFwIAAA==
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] WG last call on draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:07:38 -0000

WG & Authors,

I have reviewed this document as an individual and have the following
comments:

1. Section 4.2, second bullet:

      To produce a short-term persistent RTCP CNAME, an RTP endpoint
      MUST either (a) use the numeric representation of the layer-2
      (Media Access Control (MAC)) address of the interface that is used
      to initiate the RTP session as the "host" part of its RTCP CNAME
      or

Is using the MAC really that unique? In these days of MAC cloning is
this good enough to use as long term persistent CNAME identifier? I also
wonder of its persistence behavior as it says to use the MAC of the
Interface that ones initiate the communication over. With multiple
interfaces, I can in the context of an application use all of these
interfaces over a set of calls. Thus it doesn't have particular good
long term stability either.

Should this option simply be removed? Or at least some discussion of
these deficiencies?

2. Section 6.1:

Secure RTP (SRTP) [RFC3711] keeps unauthorized entities out of an RTP
   session, but it does not aim to prevent impersonation attacks from
   unauthorized entities.

Shouldn't the last "unauthorized" be "authorized". Unauthorized packets
will never be processed where the impersonation matters.


Otherwise this looks good.

Cheers

Magnus


On 2013-03-12 20:04, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> WG,
> 
> This is to announce the start of a WG last call on:
> 
> Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names
> (CNAMEs) to be published as a proposed standard.
> 
> Document can be retrieved here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis/
> 
> Please provide any feedback by the 31st of March.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> WG chair
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------