Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 29 May 2019 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37404120096; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=QxuhFkUm; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=rUBPIKk5
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 VXO4g9BPYk3K; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4753120048; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED03421AD2; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:47:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 May 2019 14:47:28 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=s CCg/o2i9cYgan35dfmHntQk/zJhT+61FvkVan4FO6k=; b=QxuhFkUmAx0g14e9C zHEc8LZ2yxUvNz5bLCVb9POjZKt8tmMWlcb+1nbNlST+pl68E4Y+iKi4BMOv0ofj Il0S+VMJxHghJfVkOF5rp2AFmsh2bBFhtRqISAuSRoU1/T6Wggc+yXmHGgAT/APR CerEAbSBEhTSLA0Zl/7Uk6R2LLkubdeq6kA1YhHgbzwmQ0Ah8WHVzKNAickqeiP8 jg5O4Z97S/hhmGwxwOwdtubhKO/lE4oZbm+efW3q3g5wjgpZAyNW4S5w9hWt/RYw 7UNQOurRPDBPMm8X6iMfXn1bG7i2JiAEZEzIO34eCg6Asmpr/wAdKX5lEz5rUwcL 8YIgg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=sCCg/o2i9cYgan35dfmHntQk/zJhT+61FvkVan4FO 6k=; b=rUBPIKk5zypsmT+YiTiyuKFMNTeioWQrRi+aYcL+xljiynXjPHDdxrLOg UGqs/2olSGhv/lDBOSrrLCE4jkTqvIuyNMDZheYg41Ya577wlm2fjrzdrW8puVg2 KrKfIlUeeQUyqa+cdX2I/f5Ecft1ilPu/O0QbgNRbOe6Aeg5h4xbmKgLN1+8/BfK 9m2m+5dt55GsYQ1LgwmTJstmlOnRcm0L7VDIGIKxIz2vFAzlIaVX/bDrDjUoOJQW Fc/P70tr6yFpsx+SbjfyyiJLCQ70bjfVXlSV9mU2uuU6b8nZkRVbJfNyr/vv/N5a pURBEvxLCywTRK//ulslQhL6gC2LA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:vtPuXIMGaSMjxP1jFczLkcMEXLj93Fjvwqu1KTlQG-POuwSr1QSM3Q>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvjedgudefvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhi shhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomh grihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdekfeenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhush htvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:vtPuXKqw-31oGcaMkBUfJqeoYPy6Qk_W3ZIcatS0Nsa8hqSChTMFQQ> <xmx:vtPuXLv1Dz7HYKVjHG4cpOIFipHB9muqwtZMFp7YzDMH_8xk1alO7g> <xmx:vtPuXJ16E9LQxZzji9gz0Y5Fdv-cl2iGZLK1gS0d_UZz3SSnIbB_gw> <xmx:wNPuXIwjVxzxMKmLkt0JL_Y4XRwW3yQ8gkVDeQb9tbz6N5oQ5J9BZA>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.83]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2CCA380059; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <155804481707.19586.13843111552522558644@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:47:24 -0400
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, sipbrandy@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9E1DC17C-8674-4AA5-A10B-EC9907675061@cooperw.in>
References: <155804481707.19586.13843111552522558644@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/MHXgQ1pir2DV8LFktnZ5cjP3ydc>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 29 May 2019 18:47:35 -0000

Elwyn, thanks for your review. I entered a Yes ballot. One comment below.

> On May 16, 2019, at 6:13 PM, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2019-05-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-05-16
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready with nits.  Thanks for an easy to read document.  I am not sure
> about whether it is acceptable to point to an expired (and effectively totally
> dead) draft (draft-kaplan...) for signuficant motivation (see minor issues). 
> Please consult with higher authorities.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> S1, para 2: The discussion and motivation for the introduction of OSRTP is at
> least partially derived from the motivation explained in Section 1 of
> draft-kaplan-mmusic-best-effort-srtp.  This is a long expired draft (2007)
> which is not going to become an RFC.  Given this, I wonder if the text ought to
> be reproduced here, perhaps as an appendix?

I think the reference to the draft is ok. It’s a stable reference.

Alissa

> 
> Nits/Editorial comments:
> 
> Abstract: s./applied to Real-time/applied to the Real-time/
> 
> Abstract: expand SDP on first use.
> 
> Abstract: expand SRTP on first use (Secure RTP).
> 
> S1:  The sentences expanding the meaning of cleartext and secure media could do
> with a little expansion to make it clear that we are talking about media
> streams even if that is what RTP is supposed to be about. Suggest:
> 
> OLD:
> In terms of secure media, cleartext is RTP [RFC3550] media which is negotiated
> with the RTP/AVP (Audio Video Profile) [RFC3551] or the RTP/AVPF profile
> [RFC4585]. Comprehensive protection is Secure RTP [RFC3711], negotiated with a
> secure profile, such as SAVP or SAVPF [RFC5124]. NEW: In the context of
> transport of secure media streams using RTP and its secured derivatives,
> cleartext is represented by an RTP [RFC3550] media stream which is negotiated
> with the RTP/AVP (Audio Video Profile) [RFC3551] or the RTP/AVPF profile
> [RFC4585], whereas comprehensive protection is represented by a Secure RTP
> [RFC3711] stream, negotiated with a secure profile, such as SAVP or SAVPF
> [RFC5124]. ENDS
> 
> (I note that SAVP and SAVPF aren't acronyms and don't need expansion.  OTOH
> AVPF probably does.)
> 
> S3: The terminology used in RFC 4566 and elsewhere seems to be m= sections
> rather than m-  sections.  Suggest s/m-/m=/g (4 places)
> 
> S3.4, last sentence:  the backward reference to Section 3.1 is not in RFC
> format. s/section [3.1]/Section 3.1/
> 
> S4, para 3:  I think the 'must' here is normative. s/ an encrypted signaling
> channel must still be used./ an encrypted signaling channel MUST still be used./
> 
> S6: The note to the RFC Editor should also note that the referenceventries
> SIPCONNECT, RFC6982 and IMTC-SIP in s8 should also be removed.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art