Re: [MMUSIC] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 16 November 2016 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C396F1294AD; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.798 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 skYUB1zUO6H2; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 941A51294A9; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F93FBE32; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:44:46 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 456eejNa6gm8; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:44:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D928BBE55; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:44:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1479285885; bh=/ly29EdxSvA/+D8rvY5oopUsvycUeKPHwaZ9wqZCTug=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=pqUhBnIaY81UJLcbekFjPk33DRBN6PlyWufZIX4zn/u8cEhq0nMqrc7a4i22TemqM KJ3DH5VxaAjiceZF8fTtZCm3npmxrdQmQfpWPwrkvxvbIs5nFAdjjZNHaeuZG6buaJ xKhWz6wzXg6OYCYcr2UmFljMGRJrrFMKFmqN/WIY=
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
References: <147747540682.18851.267971327825992233.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMRcRGRQYoVuurAuiy9tJFcJ_Kt3fR_4Cr9oStZiWcCNdvwGog@mail.gmail.com> <09c0816b-40b2-a3ea-cbdb-265eca5d66cc@cs.tcd.ie> <C723B99A-074F-4EA1-9B65-636B5C3A83D8@cisco.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <eb9dfce1-7b4a-2d33-aae6-f165e820b5de@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:44:45 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C723B99A-074F-4EA1-9B65-636B5C3A83D8@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms010808080906070408030802"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/0xrlxlcxiJSmtvEs7eVmbS6Q3Zs>
Cc: "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:44:52 -0000


On 16/11/16 03:50, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> So here my straw man suggestion ... it seems like the right place to
> mention this is in the security consideration for bundle and point
> out that if you offer multiple m-lines that are bundled, the
> recommendation is for the offers and answer to have the same security
> level or put the m-line with the highest level security first so that
> if bundle is selected, we get the strongest security.
> 
> I know that's a bit hand wavy but does that make sense?
> 

Yep, that'd help.
Thanks,
S.