Re: [payload] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-payload-vp8-17: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

I was able to dig up the document we had this discussion on and the
boilerplate appropriately reflects the outcome of the discussion from
rfc7587.  I knew I remembered the wording when I saw it, and it is
what was agreed upon.

Thanks,
Kathleen

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 17, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Sep 2015, at 21:24, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is this a SHOULD:
>>> Applications SHOULD use one or more appropriate strong security
>>> mechanisms.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be more helpful to point out why you would use specific
>>> security mechanisms for security considerations?
>>
>> Hi Kathleen,
>>
>> That's part of the boilerplate for payload drafts. The idea is that the security requirements are specific to the application that uses RTP, not RTP itself or the related payload format. For example, WebRTC requires DTLS-SRTP. There's an open discussion on what should be required for point-to-point RTP sessions signaled via SIP (which I need to push forward.)
>>
>> This is discussed further in RFCs 7201 and 7202.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>
> Thanks, Ben!
>
> Do you recall which draft we changed that in or was it unrelated, just an incredibly similar sentence?
>
> Thanks,
> Kathleen



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen