IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Tue, 07 April 2015 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D8F1B3659; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611] autolearn=no
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 DsoFJvbBxyGf; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16C771B3660; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67E5E2038; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:43:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02205-04; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from securerf.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:fe80::ea2a:eaff:fe7d:235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mocana.ihtfp.org", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC2EBE2036; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:43:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by securerf.ihtfp.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id t37EgxLG007527; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:42:59 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
References: <sjmoaosz53h.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <54E3A32F.2010008@jmvalin.ca> <760B7D45D1EFF74988DBF5C2122830C24D064CDE@szxpml507-mbx.exmail.huawei.com> <sjmk2zdzv6g.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <916F29B3-E392-481B-A269-FBA58DFEF14D@nostrum.com> <551C612B.4030702@mozilla.com> <C3DD8EE5-B066-4C06-99F4-B9147A128811@nostrum.com> <C17AE3D5-F62D-42A3-9F1F-885BF1B984EB@nostrum.com> <551EFB9C.4040504@xiph.org> <sjmy4m5grwp.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <269A06E2-6704-4E5E-BBFD-92F157639261@nostrum.com> <5522D40E.8040402@nostrum.com> <73626E80-1EBA-4A85-83DD-32423649DBD1@csperkins.org> <035501d0711a$7856b0a0$690411e0$@gmail.com> <5523C5AE.7040108@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:42:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5523C5AE.7040108@mozilla.com> (Jean-Marc Valin's message of "Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:55:26 -0400")
Message-ID: <sjmpp7ggft8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/5XLAX11C163GMeYsBe9lTW7d3Yg>
Cc: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, secdir@ietf.org, payload@ietf.org, jspittka@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org, koenvos74@gmail.com, 'Colin Perkins' <csp@csperkins.org>, 'Robert Sparks' <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 14:43:27 -0000

Hi,

Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com> writes:

> Does anyone object to this earlier proposal?
>
> "Opus does not provide any built-in confidentiality or integrity
> protection. Protection requirements vary between RTP applications. See
> RFC 7201 and RFC 7202 for a discussion."
>
> If not, that's probably what should go in the RFC (assuming it works
> for Kathleen Moriarty's DISCUSS too).
>
> 	Jean-Marc

It's not quite as strong a statement as I'd like to see, but if Kathleen
is okay with it then I'm okay with it.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email