IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 26 June 2013 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F88F21F9A64; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 02:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l6qaFDUAeWbL; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 02:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A0321E8106; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 02:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ASW23557; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:46:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:45:28 +0100
Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:46:10 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.43]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:46:06 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Shawn M Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12
Thread-Index: AQHOckTd96glCg6T/0ypV8ToJGuOoplHvkQg
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:46:05 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B43D83@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <519097A8.40409@oracle.com> <51CAA254.6040303@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <51CAA254.6040303@oracle.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.149]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:46:32 -0000

Hi,Shawn:
Thank for your comments, my reply is inline below.

Regards!
-Qin

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn M Emery [mailto:shawn.emery@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:12 PM
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb-12


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 internet-draft specifies a RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Extended Report
(XR) Block for data on jitter buffer configuration and performance.

The security considerations section does exist and states that the new block
data does not introduce any additional security concerns than those stated
in the base XR spec, RFC 3611.  I believe this to be an accurate assertion.

General comments:

I found the draft slightly hard to read, as the terminology and abbreviations
used are not expanded.  For example, the abstract has "RTP", but never expands
the abbreviation.

[Qin]; RTP is abbreviation of  "A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" and defined
In the basic RTP protocol specification [RFC3550], it is the basic atom we are used 
in the context of this draft and can not be decomposed.For other term and abbreviation,
I will check and fix that, thanks.


Editorial comments:

s/[RFC6390]and/[RFC6390] and/

[Qin]:okay.Thanks!

Shawn.
--

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email