IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 43E191A00F1; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 06:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 MqQN8z8Iw7Ee; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 06:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B72C1A01D5; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 06:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t39Dj5Dh088743 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:45:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 08:45:05 -0500
Message-ID: <D8C8B618-E131-4F64-BFAC-CA62F7A354B8@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <sjm8ue1h1hc.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
References: <sjmoaosz53h.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <916F29B3-E392-481B-A269-FBA58DFEF14D@nostrum.com> <551C612B.4030702@mozilla.com> <C3DD8EE5-B066-4C06-99F4-B9147A128811@nostrum.com> <C17AE3D5-F62D-42A3-9F1F-885BF1B984EB@nostrum.com> <551EFB9C.4040504@xiph.org> <sjmy4m5grwp.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <269A06E2-6704-4E5E-BBFD-92F157639261@nostrum.com> <5522D40E.8040402@nostrum.com> <73626E80-1EBA-4A85-83DD-32423649DBD1@csperkins.org> <035501d0711a$7856b0a0$690411e0$@gmail.com> <5523C5AE.7040108@mozilla.com> <sjmpp7ggft8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <CAHbuEH63BtaENfm6-_itp1eLtSCyC8LRvGbGPbKVAR-k6GQdZA@mail.gmail.com> <927CC992-13D7-41B9-A9AF-7F4E31905DF2@csperkins.org> <sjmd23ehf4o.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <402C1C17-65A1-4461-9CA8-D7035022DEFE@csperkins.org> <759691e866a2fc8c41aa43acc18cbd19.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <B9A87595-5AAF-47CA-B898-8C8601D3B8C1@nostrum.com> <8D455380-E490-4026-8485-4CE05F345E7F@nostrum.com> <82197574-D574-45C1-BFCF-0826E0037ED3@csperkins.org> <sjm8ue1h1hc.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/_hS3i0YzbNqjRS1C3FXUZpM9M3A>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, payload@ietf.org, jspittka@gmail.com, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, payload-chairs@tools.ietf.org, koenvos74@gmail.com, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [payload] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 09 Apr 2015 13:45:29 -0000

On 9 Apr 2015, at 8:31, Derek Atkins wrote:

> Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> writes:
>
>> I think "SHOULD use an appropriate strong security mechanism" is 
>> quite
>> different to "SHOULD use SRTP", since we know of cases where SRTP
>> isn't suitable. That was my objection to the original text.
>
> I'm fine with "SHOULD use an appropriate strong security mechanism",
> which is what I tried to convey with my added sentence to the guidance
> paragraph.

I would be okay with "SHOULD use an appropriate strong security 
mechanism". I assume the intended difference is the removal of the "as 
suggested by those references" part.

>
> -derek
> -- 
>      Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
>      derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
>      Computer and Internet Security Consultant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email