[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-10

Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 09 August 2022 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBC0C14F73A; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 22:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rmcat@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.12.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <166002236325.19592.1530282258442323000@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 22:19:23 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/g6tYC1e9gFlrukJ5MnIRWCyQgBA>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-10
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 05:19:23 -0000

Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Has Nits

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.

This document discusses the types of congestion control feedback using the RTP
Control Protocol. The document analyzes the feedback packet sizes and content
for point-to-point Voice Telephony and point-to-point Conference call.

Since most of today's conference bridges are multi-points to multi-points or at
least multi-points (users) to multi-servers, I think multi-points analysis
would be more useful. Will the author consider adding them?

As for the Consideration of the RTCP feedback (Section 2), should you also
consider how far away the endpoints are?  Will network congestion and distances
impact the RTCP feedback?

Section 1 states, "It is also assumed that the congestion control feedback
mechanism in RFC8888, .. are available." Question: Is the Congestion Control
Feedback mechanism described in this document the same as in RRC 8888? What are
the key differences?

The Security Considerations Section content is good.

Cheers,
Linda Dunbar