[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Mon, 14 June 2010 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <secdir-bounces@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7516C3A6803 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.854
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IFIFHKep6wqf for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (PCH.MIT.EDU []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89463A67A7 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (pch.mit.edu []) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o5EBR7fD032084 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:27:07 -0400
Received: from mailhub-dmz-2.mit.edu (MAILHUB-DMZ-2.MIT.EDU []) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o5EBR5JN032081 for <secdir@PCH.mit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:27:05 -0400
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-1.MIT.EDU []) by mailhub-dmz-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id o5EBQvS6028777 for <secdir@mit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:27:05 -0400
X-AuditID: 1209190c-b7bd2ae000005d05-fe-4c1612081a8d
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org []) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id B2.15.23813.902161C4; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B56D4201C9; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:27:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id D1A2440D4; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: secdir@mit.edu, iesg@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:26:58 -0400
Message-ID: <tslsk4pzwfx.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-BeenThere: secdir@mit.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: secdir-bounces@mit.edu
Errors-To: secdir-bounces@mit.edu
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
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: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:27:04 -0000

Hi.  I've reviewed draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory for the security
directorate.  The security ADs should read this draft very carefully,
although I think that's obvious from the filename.  However, after doing
a careful reading of my own, I didn't find any problems.

I might wish for a stronger statement in section 5 that particular
profiles of RTP need to specify a mandatory to implement security
mechanism.  However, this is not a BCP, and I can understand why you
wouldn't put that statement in an informational document.  Also, it's a
bit tricky to get that statement right, considering for example the
implications of a profile of RTP that might of itself be a framework.
secdir mailing list