IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-delayed-duplication-01

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 06:32 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
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 D78EA21F8FAB for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 8XHQ7I+K8xVM for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB0121F8FA4 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=594; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1366785159; x=1367994759; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Syn86zRBEptiexPQnNe2AdgD/TcYOB5cmCk7Ty31wJs=; b=YAog8qTAe9PlfBo2RIJMMbILxqLJlJHmzzafnfSjqw32OTR8DCbejOGF 2uR2ipBsu1VGfC7DEBTHJ1cCeWmmu1+JSjoW4x0Rp8WVVH2rhY53rPzEu O6vVZ89vuzwfb39lyTULaWJ7JcVb/Dow0YHfQSwPGa1bSNg9JcQKYHPSf I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkkFACd8d1GtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABQgmUhgyG7ZYELFnSCHwEBAQMBeQULAgEIIiQyJQIEDgUIiAYGAb1XjnUCMQeCaGEDiFefYIMOgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,540,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="202299205"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2013 06:32:27 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3O6WRJp001694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:32:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:32:27 -0500
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-delayed-duplication-01
Thread-Index: AQHOMh+OrJd+p16ntUKckcdJFFsN55jk0xuAgACHcAA=
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:32:26 +0000
Message-ID: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940D00FB1B@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
References: <515F03F3.6070400@ericsson.com> <51770ADD.6080702@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <51770ADD.6080702@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.74.158]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <8C533F6D51205541BA737247C879E6F1@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<draft-ietf-mmusic-delayed-duplication@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-mmusic-delayed-duplication@tools.ietf.org>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-delayed-duplication-01
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Apr 2013 06:32:40 -0000

On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I reviewed the draft and noticed that in the intro section you mention a possible DoS attack using the delayed duplication functionality, but it's not discussed at all in the security considerations section. Should that be addressed too?
> 

Really? the whole section talks about what could happen if someone could modify the SDP (number of dup streams, delays, etc.). Especially the last paragraph mentions this. is it not clear?

> 
> Cheers,
> Ari (as individual)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email