[AVTCORE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-14.txt> (Securing the RTP Protocol Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution) to Informational RFC

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Fri, 22 November 2013 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9551AE1C8; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:07:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xkSkLMaKwkbK; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C341ADF50; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83.p1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20131122220752.31098.83432.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:07:52 -0800
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: [AVTCORE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-14.txt> (Securing the RTP Protocol Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:07:54 -0000

The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document:
- 'Securing the RTP Protocol Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single
   Media Security Solution'
  <draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-14.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   This memo discusses the problem of securing real-time multimedia
   sessions, and explains why the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP),
   and the associated RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), do not mandate a
   single media security mechanism.  Guidelines for designers and
   reviewers of future RTP extensions are provided, to ensure that
   appropriate security mechanisms are mandated, and that any such
   mechanisms are specified in a manner that conforms with the RTP
   architecture.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.