[secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-04

"Hilarie Orman" <hilarie@purplestreak.com> Mon, 07 July 2014 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EBE1A0AEB; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 21:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_12LTRDOM=0.099, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YmOmlV9s-Tzy; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 21:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com (out03.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9DDE1A01AD; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 21:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out03.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1X40s7-0000e7-LN; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:49:47 -0600
Received: from [72.250.219.84] (helo=sylvester.rhmr.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1X40s4-0004v7-Ud; Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:49:47 -0600
Received: from sylvester.rhmr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sylvester.rhmr.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2ubuntu1) with ESMTP id s674nd2O020241; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 22:49:39 -0600
Received: (from hilarie@localhost) by sylvester.rhmr.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id s674ndEX020239; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 22:49:39 -0600
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 22:49:39 -0600
Message-Id: <201407070449.s674ndEX020239@sylvester.rhmr.com>
From: "Hilarie Orman" <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+HBhROjPKz+ojK/C/bBaHD
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 72.250.219.84
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: hilarie@purplestreak.com
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-Combo: **;secdir@ietf.org
X-Spam-Relay-Country:
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:58:17 -0700)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Z7hw5BoA8q-bZucTabdxPoT1YyA
Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Hilarie Orman <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
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: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 04:49:50 -0000

Security review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-psi-decodability-04
RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report (XR) Block for MPEG2
Transport Stream (TS) Program Specific Information (PSI) Decodability
Statistics Metrics reporting

Do not be alarmed.  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.

The purpose of the document is to define a new block type for
reporting of data about MPEG2 transport consistency tests.

The security considerations are the same as those described in
RFC 3611 "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)".
Those considerations fall under the technical rubric of "funky",
but the draft under discussion does not add any new wrinkles.

Hilarie Orman