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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 09 April 2015 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 8DE6F1B2DA8; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 03:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 twiwlq6upyO6; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 03:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BFC11B2DA7; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 03:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2181BBECA; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:04:29 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id azZWJc-XVRzv; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:04:28 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.18.59]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7906CBED1; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:04:27 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <55264EAB.6090804@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 11:04:27 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <sjmoaosz53h.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <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> <sjmpp7ggft8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <CAHbuEH63BtaENfm6-_itp1eLtSCyC8LRvGbGPbKVAR-k6GQdZA@mail.gmail.com> <927CC992-13D7-41B9-A9AF-7F4E31905DF2@csperkins.org> <sjmd23ehf4o.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <402C1C17-65A1-4461-9CA8-D7035022DEFE@csperkins.org> <759691e866a2fc8c41aa43acc18cbd19.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <B9A87595-5AAF-47CA-B898-8C8601D3B8C1@nostrum.com> <f9665835930b18598 ce87f90b8296b39.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <8D455380-E490-4026-8485-4CE05F345E7F@nostrum.com> <82197574-D574-45C1-BFCF-0826E0037ED3@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <82197574-D574-45C1-BFCF-0826E0037ED3@csperkins.org>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/AYoj3_zbYUAWfx-14moOftI-Flk>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, payload@ietf.org, jspittka@gmail.com, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org, koenvos74@gmail.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: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:04:31 -0000

I do agree with Colin here (and with Ben and Robert) but...

On 09/04/15 10:58, Colin Perkins wrote:
> A document giving normative security guidance for unicast SIP-based
> telephony using RTP is something we need, I agree. I'm happy to help
> reviewing such a thing, but it should be authored by someone more
> familiar with the deployed security mechanisms.

I've just gotten offlist mail from another secdir reviewer who
noted that we had exactly the same discussion 7 years ago for
another payload document. And I recall it myself more recently.

So that unicast SIP/RTP document really would save us all some
time and might help those implementing and deploying security
stuff in such cases. (And even if folks were not implementing
or deploying security stuff for this 7 years ago, I would say
that it's much more likely they will be doing that today and
in future.)

S.