IETF Logo Mail Archive

[clue] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 22 December 2016 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262A8129766 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:00:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=yD5QRyBz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=XSDHFgG/
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 0ysUyna9WwX2 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3DFD1295A4 for <clue@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2DB20AF6 for <clue@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:00:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:00:44 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=ZMfjNXuZC+EJ8UXwkxG9RUl6Pz4=; b=yD5QRy BzSWO5+UUQUXdvqegNY7TlsYYoTNPQKZPr9RlhNPKo1fbD4M/rubVQ6yo2d+rm4C nir90Bf5b3s1RlWv5nS6tE/TSC+0WDcjagXTNbz6sjOCFuqJojoji7307qmEilsM r0cRWMYay4i25u69mew9FVYg7Wpyhj/rjm3bo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=ZMfjNXuZC+EJ8U XwkxG9RUl6Pz4=; b=XSDHFgG/d9tdxRcnR8aoAPTleiPWy6ErdoYZ/tVHd/ZdLR Mop+ulOXpT0+hdop/OlJa8akz4NGghlHCXeHx0M/enAmZRx8cXZTNBaHT5ucm6Si QQd45CCrHYMphp0oz8a+uh3wcqSFNV4b9A1TlDibESCf22ZgFS6W1e/H53k3U=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:6zBcWMZqQaJ2_Ed1448zKr0oa6rKdmaeAh_GukqnrfJnrmeZeKW-xg>
X-Sasl-enc: De0c7WMRz0t8JBB4YG1KNrQYTWKZeRo7y3lWe5SPEOj+ 1482436843
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8812.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.181]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6F8BC7E057 for <clue@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:00:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4D3B9D6C-A148-41F0-8783-3E542F83CE6A@cooperw.in>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:00:41 -0500
To: CLUE <clue@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/riwB7x5nVqzVPisaqkz8hO23bzU>
Subject: [clue] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: CLUE - ControLling mUltiple streams for TElepresence <clue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/clue/>
List-Post: <mailto:clue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:00:46 -0000

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. I believe the document is ready for last call and I’ll request it shortly. Please resolve the nits below as well as the I-D nits together with any last call comments.

Nits:

= Section 1 =

s/The proposed solution/The solution/

s/three mapping/three mappings/

= Section 4 =

s/each Media Capture Encodings/each Media Capture Encoding/

s/isAlternately the MCU/Mixer/Alternatively, the MCU/Mixer/

= Section 5 =

s/This CaptureIDis/This CaptureID is/

= Section 9 =

"If further evidence
   are produced to show that information leakage is significant from
   audio level indications, then use of encryption needs to be mandated
   at that time."

It's not clear to me if this is talking about deployments of this specification as a whole and mandating encryption in an RFC update, or individual deployments where such a decision might be made. It would help to clarify.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email