Re: [AVT] IESG Review of draft-ietf-srtp-08.txt

[inline]

--> Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com> writes:
> SRTP is on the agenda of the IESG again this week.
> Some more comments on SRTP may still come in, but I thought
> it would be worth sending on those of Russ Housley, the second Security
> AD.  Steve Bellovin has supported the draft.  Russ has comments that 
> seem straightforward to address.  Wait for more comments before 
> sending in a revision, but so far things are going well.
> 
> Allison
> 
> > 
> > >                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain
> > >
> > >Russ Housley        [   ]     [   ]       [ X ]      [   ]
> > 
> > I have six comments.
> > 
> > 1.  In section 1, spell out the first use of RTCP.
> > 
> > 2.  I find the structure of section 2 confusing.  I had to read it
> > twice to understand it.  I think that a second level of indenting would
> > be one way to fix it.  I am sure there are others.
> > 
> > 3.  In section 3.1, in the paragraph after figure 1, please delete:
> > 
> >     "It is exact for the pre-defined transforms."
> > 
> > This point is made more clearly later in the paragraph.  Then, at the
> > end of the same paragraph, the document says:
> > 
> >     "While it could seem more attractive to specify a fixed padding
> >     scheme for all transforms, security and flexibility of transform
> >     specifications REQUIRE that each transform specify a secure
> >     padding method."
> > 
> > I disagree.  IPsec and S/MIME both specify padding schemes that are 
> > employed by all of the ciphers.  Please reword.  Do not use "REQUIRE"
> > in the replacement.

If IPsec and S/MIME both define a standard padding mechanism, why cannot
SRTP do the same?  And, perhaps, use the standard RTP padding mechanism?

-- 
Colin Perkins
csp@csperkins.org

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

Re: [AVT] IESG Review of draft-ietf-srtp-08.txt - another set of comments