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

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the commens see below.

Regards
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 26 May 2015 12:31
> To: Peter Yee
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> IETF Discussion Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16
> 
> 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?
> ...

I think this should really be "context" so should be changed.



> > Page 38, section 12, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: perhaps the word
> > "effective" would be more appropriate than characterizing it as an
> > "automatic" downgrade?
> >

Good comment "effective" would be a better wording.



> > 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.

Cannot argue with that and probably we should remove the sentence starting "The risk of not authenticating the SRS...".



> 
> Jari