Re: [Ieprep] comments on draft-schulzrinne-ieprep-resource-req

Ken,

You make an excellent point. If we were to attempt to replicate in
detail security requirements/issues in each and every document, it is likely
that the text would be slightly different as the security requirements
evolved. By pointing to a single source one avoids the unintended differences.

Ken Carlberg wrote:

> > -Also, I think that the requirement implied in number 3 is cumbersome
> > and poorly stated.
> > what is the requirement here?  is this a requirement that session setup
> > via SIP may need appropriate QoS marked or requested?  if it is, say so
> > directly.
>
> as I read the draft, items 1 through 4 of the Introduction seemed more
> aimed at providing motivation for the R-P mechanism, as opposed to
> requirements.  after points 1-4, actual requirements are stated.  one
> thing that may help is to divide the Intro section into two parts:
> 1. Introduction, and 2. Requirements
>
> > - the security requirements are WAY underspecified.
>
> would it be possible to simply point to Ian Brown's draft
> <draft-ietf-ieprep-security-01.txt> and expand it if necessary to address
> the security concerns you may have?   my personal view is that I would be
> a bit weary of placing a lot of security work in a requirements doc
> for a labeling mechanism.  mind you, I'm not saying that security is
> a non-issue (actually, its quite critical).  but I think because we have
> a number of drafts that need to address the subject, it would be easier to
> have consensus on a single document as opposed to trying to replicate in
> detail security requirements/issues in each and every document.
>
> my 2 cents,
>
> -ken
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ieprep mailing list
> Ieprep@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

Re: [Ieprep] comments on draft-schulzrinne-ieprep-resource-req

Attachment: goldmans.vcf