Re: [MMUSIC] Re: ADs - Re: Status of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions-12.txt?

Folks,

In the interests of making progress, please provide any comments on  
this proposal to the mailing list before 15th February.

Colin

On 8 Feb 2006, at 03:01, Mark Baugher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> An issue arose during RFC Editor review of draft-ietf-mmusic- 
> sdescriptions-12 just prior to publication.  An Internet Draft  
> document, Security Preconditions, appears among the Normative  
> references.  The authors did not intend for it to be a Normative  
> reference; it should have been in the Informative References  
> section.  Still, this triggered a review and discussion.  Before  
> proceeding to publication, the chairs and ADs wish for the WG to  
> consider some of the issues of publishing draft-ietf-mmusic- 
> sdescriptions without Security Preconditions.
>
> SDP security descriptions (sdesc) as defined in draft-ietf-mmusic- 
> sdescriptions-12.txt is designed to support a variety of signaling  
> protocols that use SDP.  One of the most important is SIP. The way  
> sdesc is defined, an answer has to be received before incoming  
> media can be processed correctly by the offerer; this is  
> unavoidable in cases where there are multiple crypto suites among  
> the SDP offers.  Without the answer, there is no way to determine  
> which crypto offer has been selected by an answerer that sends  
> media upon receiving the first SDP message.  This is a problem  
> whenever media commences prior to receipt of the SDP answer.
>
> The authors recognized this problem while working on the sdesc  
> specification, and as a result, two of the authors wrote Security  
> Preconditions (see draft-ietf-mmusic-securityprecondition-01.txt).  
> However not everyone in the SIP community likes preconditions due  
> to the added state machine complexity and signaling latency.  The  
> current sdesc merely offers security preconditions as one possible  
> solution, however it incorrectly lists it as a Normative reference.  
> One alternative has already been offered (draft-wing-mmusic-sdes- 
> early-media-00.txt) and at least one more extension to sdesc to  
> address these issues is in the works.
>
>  In lieu of the above, the authors would like to change the current  
> Normative reference to security preconditions to be an Informative  
> reference instead. There is a concern, however, that with such a  
> change, we would not have a complete normative solution for SIP.   
> So, we're asking the WG members for comments.  draft-ietf-mmusic- 
> sdescriptions-12.txt has finished last call in the WG and the IESG,  
> but the document that completed last call relied upon security  
> preconditions, which may not be the ultimate solution.  We would  
> like to know if anyone in the WG objects to progressing this I-D  
> without security preconditions being normative and without another  
> normative solution to address the above issues. If you object,  
> please speak up and let us know what the normative solution should be.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark, Flemming & Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic