IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 21 December 2015 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803361A701D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:04:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 97OnezG6ced5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C6061A701C for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e126so140225912ioa.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:04:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VVr5LYkbkJqTDkvKS8Ur32s9nviVxT2cwcZFa21c0PM=; b=dTw9qSpYY5ZwvBRq0vFx1FJr6PH+/fqlhkO2WdqEhXXMhvA2rpACbKAkBgRwl0nZDS PfjdIopaVtI9WwBPxYFxEFP0SBRVSTtlTROr0jQ5FAmPF1jXhDubMcJICNncf7K29hlK M0ZzhnC8u+fcv4wnq153W7a5BJ3ZHUNiitmciBSErX8zMjoBaAId7ocLKICGAnftFaMw X7oB6ctFINsmbI+QCrTlRMwsc1cUvtYsNN3IXG2z/wzXZ7wMFzJnx/3Lq31hCV9RBH3s mwdNLHsH5RU3HtJ8cYvfu9noSW0ZF/veUVv+O4vnHtBqVMWrIK00erR+2YFzlMs8wTSR 9cBA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.26.144 with SMTP id a138mr17048052ioa.100.1450659874142; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.149.130 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 17:04:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37CED885@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37C8B1E5@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABkgnnVUy+FiRps1KWAkmhbTvS0UsYy70t4XRmWWE9x1Gp11Cw@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37CED885@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:04:34 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVE8QM8fT624G50-Oa8ZS_DT78HS1PP=nRD9tzptLJoww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/MNSmN-dUsw1hqfzC8tCLUtidFtk>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-02
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 01:04:36 -0000

On 18 December 2015 at 19:11, Christer Holmberg
<christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> My assumption is that all changes that mandate a new DTLS  connection are accompanied by signalling. But, I agree that it needs to be more clear.

This seems pretty important, yes.  I'd recommend making it the first
statement in the description of the new attribute.

> The requirements are taken from RFC 7345. We were asked by the security folks to include them.

Include by reference then.  Restating them just gives you another shot
at making a mistake.

>> I think that the 5245 change is incorrect though because it loses some important details.
>
> Do you mean some other RFC? The draft does not update RFC 5245. Or, do you mean that some reference to RFC 5245 is incorrect?

Sorry, it was the last 7345 change that I was talking about.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email