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

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Mon, 26 April 2010 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
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 C2BAE28C145; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Y-KgsHB6brH; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F0D3A6B05; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk11 with SMTP id 11so14494368qyk.13 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=v+XD2PuhkelMuaJWAnxbHdqfowRaIdIASyFzQVrH6so=; b=GnW+UK+BzZX+kuCAA5SVWSMX7y9EEyY13kS+nyOdA1s+Dbuok/A6oRyISTteO2lm8s wRMff27ttj5gCZ68Lc95FRYtahBg9Q+e0ptGd2Nz4hHUT0KMyPtqrZH/64COAjIZahoN l2MWZqVMszjeNiUlfrQVyA2faQje5+PqXibKQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=seOrGAGV/mb7wXpkzkl8gVlOM2XSDGC/q0cV+0/S2g22Nx0/2Ua/u6DkQsgZPAxPwH xoUfv6/gq36hUHNxSoNlp2gd/FVplzAJvOJZrsXc0esx0y2ZxbgNqY5Y8i4Vxg4QxzvR P1v+Y13XBpb1ZQYcJ6h4OchjgwEZOzb1BcBz0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id dk15mr4270456qcb.20.1272258845323; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:14:05 -0700
Message-ID: <g2nc09b97ef1004252214p3ad63f2el5cc8631617ae8b48@mail.gmail.com>
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-10.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [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: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:30:51 -0000

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.