[Perc] draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 18 July 2021 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3EE63A0B41 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Sy6dPG5-fq-v for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe31.google.com (mail-vs1-xe31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e31]) (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 25C333A0B38 for <perc@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe31.google.com with SMTP id a66so7397681vsd.10 for <perc@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=g0HKrhtYqQ5kG6JmlizIosTuNG4/DwESAIlsT6j8g20=; b=usFFzYWiknU2TGU477rNVl2CUSm06Pftt9PXX37BOHybkSTU358EnZUDwYCflSeTKm CYF4v+G351vw9j/qbSNEeCuMdhlLWmvMYdbUqvfGIz2sr8QNB2xFhfXlJJLttkSDYwXO 3ydKImm0PdJJUuZXezLZzId7rlmSF8uYgqMEL7Gmat91lisnaQUj248LnHgmdTT2k7zg NEbC9VrtpGx6PcjLMzENKhJ7pGsCqunZRdnEKbS+iPWeZBOm2g/j0Kh1U3x1VrtvGau4 gZZ0gEbzP5srwntTf1qhCvZrDJf6GxL74NGNXLP5W8EstlG5jSpyZqwiqVvcCtXqmVql i7CQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=g0HKrhtYqQ5kG6JmlizIosTuNG4/DwESAIlsT6j8g20=; b=VI815z5EOfML3H+N0yDfAxdgObSMewVdvznoNwvBFGiM0fRDnlQstbVbMFmTtxyEqj U8jb5FA+DmKjIbLjtkOys+cjGa5uvqJ/NxzZKGCxPmm0e8akSSPpIJcs9LN4lUkjLnNp aBwmW/d4qMpKjNzger93uAJwFbCjXHu5d2GumdeSGrAmdjn39LaHna5j2miv2K7MdjA8 3bRIACpj2hWdvWY128zhvkQZ196fu3tN4e09or+CbohNvrlMb/fd6Yv5+oFVwJ5w2dy7 Uqt+/zpQpoor08jQzEesq0+gunx1yxzNmKzLMVpqK2OkTVb3NpPndbtQKRmPPpaFFReh uD8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532DVUW86GgpXyCvH0Mbpehqpg2utWiKRJcjzV4bf85WCk2iSbHa x20cFSwXgqRQksynjJwl7FzQe/T2ZCl5gn+d8Y0eRGTa
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzYQdpAbFjYOgG0EXiWMfyvoIA2Yf++J2ey5yaJjaIYaOqmBrW7vVMNp2gfbDV1qxdA9/cQ+QGKECTzQBM6cjc=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:1a45:: with SMTP id a66mr20482589vsa.15.1626578037992; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:13:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwauM4NNKnaGgAs70KkFMH-Q0vAH=QVeGQV31TtEYHjidA@mail.gmail.com>
To: perc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027702005c75d3672"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/R-zQJkX0M9oW2eZ_dX4k1YnqBKI>
Subject: [Perc] draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel
X-BeenThere: perc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing <perc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perc>, <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/perc/>
List-Post: <mailto:perc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc>, <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 03:14:12 -0000

Hi all,

This document passed through the IESG late last month and as you can see it
drew two DISCUSS questions.  The first was about DTLS versioning, and the
security Area Director did a thorough treatment on the issue.  Does the
Working Group have any response to it?

The second is the matter of why this document is Informational when it's
written as a Standards Track document.  A related point is that it creates
an IANA registry, normally something left for Standards documents.  The
shepherd writeup presents it as an example rather than a specification, but
it really does have the look and feel of the latter.  How does the WG want
to proceed here?

-MSK