Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Thu, 27 June 2013 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A0821F9EAC; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t8qweLhA8-pn; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x236.google.com (mail-oa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9630A21F9EA9; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id o6so1553159oag.27 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=eK2/Wek/+eTjUzw53amx8FHZXMfVB0K1Mjm8cEancL4=; b=PlYQFXihJIvlgmIaQXgXXIARO2qgKQ20MOo5HypvIXWMRKNaRGIXCvs1i4l9tNQgDK KQuKkk0GvXFdXn0dcVONBe7f0SfGjZ0T7498Tnilp8zhy1dDnKXLIJpvqcMqPha+0SGB AJkUVAXhopurp3GzsueyMILBYj2WX+ck5QifTiHnXMDBNizjnWx3+u2uh9nI71T7u5xi JHb8wwMDlhy1HNG450XehBkNnMoStP82Mv3PIL/vUtOrvH/glVEt6sHyx/6/jxXPRxCI /i0MN2+h8dRKHo4PMG+cqcGOTdmaOXyB3Yh3R3RZ31MrDBIF9FslpbZUUAAbYwIh0UbA UDyA==
X-Received: by 10.60.35.65 with SMTP id f1mr3907992oej.17.1372371512075; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.12.65 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51CC54B0.3050702@ericsson.com>
References: <519097A8.40409@oracle.com> <51CAA254.6040303@oracle.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B43D83@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <51CC54B0.3050702@ericsson.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:18:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEE7E84Cy42mYEQp3RmUOnycr3m6xC8C9rAWK2SykZjw5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 27 Jun 2013 22:18:33 -0000

I believe it is always better to bend over backwards, if need be, to
make a document clear. If someone had requested it, I would spell out
any acronym in a draft of mine, not matter how "well known" -- IETF,
IP, TCP, whatever. I believe the correct response to a request to
spell out an acronym on first use is always to simply agree with that
request, as in "RTP (Real-time Transport Protocol)".

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
<Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>; wrote:
> Hi,
>
> note that RTP is one of the well-known abbreviations that do not need
> expansion:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 26/06/2013 12:46 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
>> Hi,Shawn:
>> Thank for your comments, my reply is inline below.
>>
>> Regards!
>> -Qin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shawn M Emery [mailto:shawn.emery@oracle.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:12 PM
>> To: secdir@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12
>>
>>
>> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
>> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
>> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
>> area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
>> comments just like any other last call comments.
>>
>> This internet-draft specifies a RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
>> (XR) Block for data on jitter buffer configuration and performance.
>>
>> The security considerations section does exist and states that the new block
>> data does not introduce any additional security concerns than those stated
>> in the base XR spec, RFC 3611.  I believe this to be an accurate assertion.
>>
>> General comments:
>>
>> I found the draft slightly hard to read, as the terminology and abbreviations
>> used are not expanded.  For example, the abstract has "RTP", but never expands
>> the abbreviation.
>>
>> [Qin]; RTP is abbreviation of  "A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" and defined
>> In the basic RTP protocol specification [RFC3550], it is the basic atom we are used
>> in the context of this draft and can not be decomposed.For other term and abbreviation,
>> I will check and fix that, thanks.
>>
>>
>> Editorial comments:
>>
>> s/[RFC6390]and/[RFC6390] and/
>>
>> [Qin]:okay.Thanks!
>>
>> Shawn.
>> --
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview