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

Hiya,

Sorry for coming late to this thread (#include <itwasaweekend.h> :-)

On 06/04/15 19:44, Robert Sparks wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I'm saying this is the wrong layer to solve the problem.
>>
>> We had some work planned to better specify this in general for RTP. I
>> think the right answer is finish that work. If we do that right, it
>> should apply regardless of codec.
>>
> That's exactly right.
> 
> We've had this conversation several times before. The individual payload
> documents are not the place to add the kind of guidance Derek is asking
> for. They should be about how you put things in RTP, not how
> applications use (and secure RTP), unless there's something unique about
> the payload that interacts with the general mechanics for using and
> securing RTP.

Robert is correct.

> Stephen will remember that we've queued up work on a document that would
> describe securing unicast RTP set up with SDP (capturing the outcome of
> the rtpsec bof at IETF68). The last I heard on the subject Dan Wing was
> taking the token to work on that document, but it's been awhile. That's
> where the effort should focus - an individual payload document is not
> the right place.

I do recall that now that you mention it. But if it's not actually
going to happen, then maybe we should rethink the approach, even if
that'd result in repeated text in payload format drafts.

Who knows the status of that work?

S.

> 
> 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> payload mailing list
>> payload@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
> 
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview