IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 26 May 2015 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5496C1A8724; Tue, 26 May 2015 04:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.79
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 GN0ee53nolVX; Tue, 26 May 2015 04:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B7B1A873C; Tue, 26 May 2015 04:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 390502CC6F; Tue, 26 May 2015 14:31:15 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCuCeXIs4OBg; Tue, 26 May 2015 14:31:14 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C372CC49; Tue, 26 May 2015 14:31:14 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F4922F4C-6720-4244-BF43-07E2E6E44E34"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <D17BB964.10F58%peter@akayla.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:31:14 +0300
Message-Id: <3E5AFFC4-59B0-44EB-BE2B-180D99C7A8FF@piuha.net>
References: <D17BB964.10F58%peter@akayla.com>
To: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3R1avHVG8h2Meb0qjmZoG5x1NlE>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-siprec-protocol.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 11:31:48 -0000

Thank you for your extensive review, Peter.

Authors, do you have thoughts on Peter’s questions? FWIW
I thought these at least were important points:

> Page 21, section 8.1.5, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: by “content” do you
> actually mean “context”?  Or do you mean to the content of a SIPREC
> recording?
...
> Page 38, section 12, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: perhaps the word
> “effective” would be more appropriate than characterizing it as an
> “automatic” downgrade?
> 
> Page 38, section 12.1, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence: just because
> an SRS is compromised does not mean that it cannot be authenticated.  It
> may very well be operating “correctly” and be able to authenticate, yet
> the compromise allows the attacker to obtain the (decrypted) RS.
> Authentication does not imply that the SRS you are talking to is not
> compromised.  It only indicates the SRS possesses some form of credential
> that appears to identify it correctly.

Jari

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status