Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32: Private Sessions

Paul Kyzivat <> Mon, 18 February 2019 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEB1130FE8; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:49:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jAIHCuhNSu73; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:49:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9291D128BCC; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:49:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x1IKnTb1006188 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:49:30 -0500
To: Colin Perkins <>
Cc: Ben Campbell <>, mmusic WG <>,
References: <> <> <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:49:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-32: Private Sessions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:49:40 -0000

On 2/13/19 6:32 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> On 2/11/19 10:45 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> - Deleted text formerly in §4.3: The removal of the “private sessions” section in its entirety deserves some explanatory text.
>> I don't recall why that was removed. I’ll try to find the discussion on it.

That is a reply from Christer. The relevant part says:

> My suggestion would be to remove the whole section. I can't remember any discussion where one would have used private vs public sessions. The Security Considerations should then cover encryption etc of SDP information.

We managed to do the part that deletes the Private Sessions section, but 
not the update to Security Considerations. When looked at from this 
perspective, Security Considerations does seem lacking.

Ben, will you be happy if this is addressed in Security Considerations? 
If so I'll open another discussion about that.