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

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Sun, 30 June 2013 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 CC57921F9C01; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0wOZG34UCWQA; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A3A21F9C03; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f826d000001766-c0-51d08560bf12
Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4C.7F.05990.06580D15; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:22:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [131.160.126.29] (153.88.183.147) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:22:07 +0200
Message-ID: <51D0855F.60500@ericsson.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:22:07 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
References: <519097A8.40409@oracle.com> <51CAA254.6040303@oracle.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA43B43D83@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <51CC54B0.3050702@ericsson.com> <CAF4+nEE7E84Cy42mYEQp3RmUOnycr3m6xC8C9rAWK2SykZjw5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEE7E84Cy42mYEQp3RmUOnycr3m6xC8C9rAWK2SykZjw5g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW5i64VAg2f/mSwez13AanFwu6bF vEXb2C1m/JnIbPFh4UMWB1aPnbPusnu0HHnL6rFkyU8mjy+XP7MFsERx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVw ZTz5dZux4JRExeneS4wNjE0iXYycHBICJhLHj51nh7DFJC7cW8/WxcjFISRwmFFi6oFWFghn DaPE/StbmUCqeAU0Jea2fgeyOThYBFQlOrrlQcJsAhYSW27dZwGxRQWiJFp7pzJDlAtKnJz5 BCwuIqAm8Xr5ArCZzAKXGCWat39gBEkICzhIdD26yAqx7AujxKIVe8GWcQoESuxccZMJ4jxJ iS0v2sFOZRbQk5hytYURwpaX2P52Dtg2IQFtieXPWlgmMArNQrJ8FpKWWUhaFjAyr2Jkz03M zEkvN9rECAzvg1t+q+5gvHNO5BCjNAeLkjjvZr0zgUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4 pRoY50+P33r5ziUpt8PH1fLOJv72jCoVdX0pfGDF9/Wbi7pX/VT76/Eh4nNrjP3JvNrWMJeW uZ5Tl/pKfGlp2KLmNP8tj7d57ONZntMXqGgWsUvVN7/WeTPv9e1H/K9fb01eP9fqbuBXfbHo srO8Mz/+mnJxiuTmqcveOsjtXcBb9rraboHCo7Psc5RYijMSDbWYi4oTAR5ze5Y9AgAA
Cc: "draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-jb.all@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:22:15 -0000

Hi Donald,

sure, that is what I also do in my own documents.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 28/06/2013 1:18 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> I believe it is always better to bend over backwards, if need be, to
> make a document clear. If someone had requested it, I would spell out
> any acronym in a draft of mine, not matter how "well known" -- IETF,
> IP, TCP, whatever. I believe the correct response to a request to
> spell out an acronym on first use is always to simply agree with that
> request, as in "RTP (Real-time Transport Protocol)".
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
> <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>; wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> note that RTP is one of the well-known abbreviations that do not need
>> expansion:
>>
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 26/06/2013 12:46 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> secdir mailing list
>> secdir@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
>> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview