IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Insipid] Addressing security-related comments / requirements spec

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Thu, 26 September 2013 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05AC621F9E77 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3EdNa2Xdc+2U for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF0C21F88FB for <insipid@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8Q1vwW0011883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <insipid@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:57:58 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1380160678; bh=1Qj1Dfhpe6c05Ig9PyitwNyLHIaSdPPZXJCQL8+ayEs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Content-Type:Message-Id:Mime-Version: Reply-To; b=i1KBumXg68DIzqJBiJv0sr0Lq7EmtO97kSfUCOf5A5tmm3e5DRfqpNcp03hhcClXk GNuqB20X4ojQfbyLCbz1X+k4A/jD2za7fKGnS4cqSX9aXGaP2QLwCX15+b/UgXUmZu ypJG/BcjR22jI023Z8lrG2sXWTu7zqGuytqydApo=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:58:05 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MBE3724EB1-D433-428F-98F7-875FDD5B7363"
Message-Id: <emd25832c2-3229-4f1f-8803-9007610947e4@sydney>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.18661.0
Subject: [Insipid] Addressing security-related comments / requirements spec
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:58:12 -0000

Folks,

Vijay Gurbani provided feedback suggesting some improvements might be 
needed in the requirements document.  See this message: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10419.html. 
  I'm referring specifically to his comment on Section 7.

We had a couple of follow-up messages that you should probably also 
read:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10437.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10507.html

After reviewing his comments, I would like to ask the group what, if 
any, changes the group feels we should make to the requirements 
document.

Thanks!
Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email