Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-10

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Fri, 30 April 2010 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.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 0D8E528C1BB; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 1XnF3EEAVkJv; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854F328C19E; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35so18531wyb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:references :in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:content-language:thread-index; bh=9I7yUF+yejaAC4Df4r3I0yfESLNHssZJY8mqDiwupIU=; b=Rs3Slkv7sM/ftYX1kidV0mrfVfMGJdW0S+3Kn+kWw6A5+KwlUx4lfhhF06hug0dnE2 CxzlAaeW/N4l+KSwwzru8e+ki6PLQ4ipypkPZXnOGA9h5v/S+jmuJOsXAOpLJ9pgLOMF /xJ2iOwS00B4bwOoFTBKYyP7UUeitIm/ljUaU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:content-language :thread-index; b=dhRzP7TXeiBI76N+LU9naHMheJktdZmnA1WvNCtVUSmOu2v5y4wInVw2X7AZAwaSQL yNll06VajJFd7qDIzWssxjLa5HaoAyHGHj4Sb0CskJWnAJNmgGbnvo4+d3FVGVdb2Hna VxaAg8fiy9IH82UZTUl77yGzb0H4N4MORtYbQ=
Received: by 10.216.90.9 with SMTP id d9mr3875136wef.95.1272621004396; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windows8d787f9 ([109.65.33.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x14sm14402331wbs.12.2010.04.30.02.50.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Radia Perlman'" <radiaperlman@gmail.com>, <secdir@ietf.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>, <yekuiwang@huawei.com>, <tom.kristensen@tandberg.com>, <tomkri@ifi.uio.no>, <rjesup@wgate.com>
References: <g2nc09b97ef1004252214p3ad63f2el5cc8631617ae8b48@mail.gmail.com> <x2vc09b97ef1004252220s4666accbl4ad1a88a50c8ce0f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <x2vc09b97ef1004252220s4666accbl4ad1a88a50c8ce0f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:49:02 +0300
Message-ID: <4bdaa7ca.8e83e30a.4af1.ffff851e@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: AcrlAD0F3iYgPT83Tjyg4fLLudYHLQDSVGNg
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:40:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-10
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: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:50:25 -0000

Hi Radia,
This is a video payload specification and the length of the document is
mostly because the big number of optional parameters that can be negotiated
and the offer answer behavior for the parameters. The 3984bis draft updates
RFC 3984 based on implementation on experience, explaining the issues that
came to the mailing list on offer answer issues.
As for the reordering of packets this are RTP issues and not the codec
issues.

Thanks
Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radia Perlman [mailto:radiaperlman@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:21 AM
> To: secdir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; yekuiwang@huawei.com;
> ron.even.tlv@gmail.com; tom.kristensen@tandberg.com; tomkri@ifi.uio.no;
> rjesup@wgate.com
> Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-10
> 
> Sorry secdir and iesg for sending this twice...I've been trying to
> figure out how to use the tools thing to get all the authors, and
> apparently didn't do it right, so I'll manually put in the authors
> names like I have done before, on previous secdir reviews.
> (sending to draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-10.all@tools.ietf.org
> bounced)
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Radia Perlman
> <radiaperlman@gmail.com>; wrote:
> > This document just describes how to carry video in RTP. Apparently
> > there is a standard in ISO and a standard in ITU (ITU-T
> Recommendation
> > H.264 and ISO/IEC International Standard 14496 Part 10) that both
> > specify nearly identical compression algorithms for video encoding.
> > Given that this document is not describing the video encoding itself,
> > but just how to carry it in RTP, it is a little surprising that this
> > document is 104 pages, but it describes what to do about reordering,
> > lost packets, fragmentation across packet boundaries, and so forth.
> >
> > There really are not any security considerations, and certainly not
> > anything they missed in their security considerations section. One
> > thing that might be nice to mention is that it is dangerous to do
> > encryption without integrity protection because a single bit error in
> > the ciphertext can cause a lot of errors in the plaintext.
> >
> > Radia
> >