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

[Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Based on Derek's latest suggestion, the text would become:

"Since Opus does not provide any confidentiality or integrity
protection, implementations SHOULD use one of the possible RTP
Security methods (See RFC7201, RFC7202)."

I think that should resolve the issue that was raised.

	Jean-Marc

On 01/04/15 05:11 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Hi Roni and Derek,
> 
> This thread sort of tailed off in February. Has the discussion been
> resolved?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
> On 19 Feb 2015, at 11:07, Derek Atkins wrote:
> 
>> Roni,
>> 
>> I'm not an RTP guy.  To me "SRTP" is a general class of "Secure
>> RTP" protocols.  So let's work on that as my starting point:
>> implementations SHOULD protect their RTP stream.
>> 
>> Based on that, how about a re-wording here?  Instead of just
>> saying "MAY use SRTP", how about something like "SHOULD use one
>> of the possible RTP Security methods (See RFC7201, RFC7202)"?
>> (Obviously this can be worded better).
>> 
>> -derek
>> 
>> Roni Even <[e-mail]> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi, The reason for the may is discussed in RFC7201 and RFC
>>> 7202, it can be a SHOULD and these RFCs exaplain when it is not
>>> required to use SRTP. Maybe add a reference to these RFCs in
>>> the security section when saying talking about good reasons for
>>> not using SRTP
>>> 
>>> Roni Even
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Valin
>>> [[e-mail]] on behalf of Jean-Marc Valin
>>> [[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:23
>>> PM To: Derek Atkins; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Cc:
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail] Subject: Re: sec-dir review of
>>> draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
>>> 
>>> Hi Derek,
>>> 
>>> There was no particular reason for the MAY, the text was merely
>>> copied from other RTP payload RFC. I totally agree with making
>>> it a SHOULD.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Jean-Marc
>>> 
>>> On 17/02/15 02:54 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> with the intent of improving security requirements and
>>>> considerations in IETF drafts.  Comments not addressed in
>>>> last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG
>>>> review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these 
>>>> comments just like any other last call comments.
>>>> 
>>>> Summary:
>>>> 
>>>> Ready to publish with a question: I question why the use of
>>>> SRTP is a MAY and not a SHOULD (as detailed in the Security
>>>> Considerations section).  Considering PERPASS I believe this
>>>> should be a SHOULD; someone should have a very good reason
>>>> why they are NOT using SRTP.
>>>> 
>>>> Details:
>>>> 
>>>> This document defines the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
>>>> payload format for packetization of Opus encoded speech and
>>>> audio data necessary to integrate the codec in the most
>>>> compatible way. Further, it describes media type
>>>> registrations for the RTP payload format.
>>>> 
>>>> I have no other comments on this document.
>>>> 
>>>> -derek
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ secdir mailing
>>> list [e-mail] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir wiki:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745 [e-mail]
>> www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVHGEoAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9powH/A2SNnh6bfcVBXImXZQl4Orc
Y9yt5YbF6nWZAbJsp47T5BdtrWm3sXO6I5Uibh9uVrd45G58H39PLQfiR0YxUVif
QbdusWArFTbTWSJcFJFFIWZd8PwiugkNrKk+oLlz3KyQAHXYGU85CTk+OuxSk3Hm
UWRFYBk66ae/h/VWDEF/XVZrzi2N0mSUCZzAfdgIrqQUcE7QuXz9jdgJf9xmNFEh
CmYYHRA4hCjdXtauLHwizIr77WGWEwBUtt0axmynp8w+qPj5OlTdOyIdRR6yjEhq
tifVbMOsLJvdm3a/I/6XAQOd9LEGwjfjxhIyPdJerer4msJlK2VlOZMG3cEeEmA=
=mvYf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----