Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Wed, 22 December 2010 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF583A6ACA; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:07:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bzeadqis+DWq; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BB23A6A4B; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHWxEU2rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACkFnOnd5tDhUkEhGaJQQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,214,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="306357816"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2010 16:09:30 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBMG9UmG025942; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:09:30 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:09:26 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:09:21 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540DFAEF2C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E50AA51@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02
Thread-Index: AcubJ4eHjcpZjn6VSrmBjIHzK3CylgAEajAQAa3NHeAAAIcdwA==
References: <4D06BD5F.5040807@gondrom.org> <220d01cb9be5$b57179c0$20546d40$@com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E50AA51@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "Dan Wing (dwing)" <dwing@cisco.com>, "Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>, <secdir@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames.all@tools.ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2010 16:09:26.0014 (UTC) FILETIME=[9AB8A1E0:01CBA1F2]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:25:58 -0800
Cc: csp@csperkins.org, even.roni@huawei.com, rjsparks@nostrum.com
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:07:32 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: Dan Wing (dwing); 'Tobias Gondrom'; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames.all@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: Ali C. Begen (abegen); csp@csperkins.org; even.roni@huawei.com; rjsparks@nostrum.com
> Subject: RE: secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02
> 
> Just coming back on the following:
> 
> > > 2.3. in section 4.2. next to last paragraph it states:
> > (other methods)
> > > "beyond the three methods listed above, are not compliant with this
> > > specification and SHOULD NOT be used."
> > > If the document is std track and updates 3550 and uses
> > "MUST" for the
> > > methods it would be inconsistent to frame it here as "SHOULD NOT".
> >
> > We will delete the sentence that says:
> >
> >   Other methods, beyond the
> >   three methods listed above, are not compliant with this
> > specification
> >   and SHOULD NOT be used.
> >
> > because it is really saying "if you don't comply with this
> > document's requirements, you aren't in compliance with this
> > document" -- which is a silly thing to say.
> >
> 
> This sentence was added as a result of my comment in the document shepherd review as follows:
> 
> "1)	Section 3 contains the following statement:
> 
>    The recommendation in [RFC3550] is to generate an RTCP CNAME of the
>    form "user@host" for multiuser systems, or "host" if the username is
>    not available.  The "host" part is specified to be the fully
>    qualified domain name (FQDN) of the host from which the real-time
>    data originates.  While this guidance was appropriate at the time
>    [RFC3550] was written, FQDNs are no longer necessarily unique, and
>    can sometimes be common across several endpoints in large service
>    provider networks.  Thus, the use of FQDN as the CNAME is strongly
>    discouraged.
> 
> Given the statement above, can you point me at the SHOULD requirement that I would expect to see relating to this in
> section 4."
> 
> So if we no longer have that added text in section 4, then we need to go back and revisit section 3, and particularly the
> sentence: "Thus, the use of FQDN as the CNAME is strongly discouraged." because it no longer is discouraged by this
> document.
> 
> An alternative statement in section 3 would be: "This document replaces the use of FQDN as a CNAME by alternative
> mechanisms."

This replacement works.

Thanks, acbegen.
 
> regards
> 
> Keith