Re: [Sipbrandy] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09

Andy Hutton <> Mon, 17 June 2019 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17F1120048; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4sMR9y5CtdF; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 628C2120135; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v18so3528630uad.12; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=x/QXzAPKYoVlptpyzYDWk7jGDs1lp9OjFVGg4FszNmk=; b=pzULsYNiebiVG/pY4rTOhDoPA8gf5hWnK854yOR9RG+CfPQeB7KsyX772tmBlk9KNK 7ONnN9BEUTK2Zs7oiwf+R4RxZr9ThDAwXeV0DPZx9mH4z9dS8fVYpc3qxgfvV9nIm3Zx 0snw45aXDKHWsMvsf2PdWYbpvPCx1s6a+nfAeI9bewZItB+S42kWKv7jEylQbuddRi/t PyQNXQqlhqpry/fs2fJfN30OnH5eY0VzeTGnpBZZFHXCQ4LQmZan5rRhePoj+BdoILrj pf7BsBljLKvLFrIr6ehC5VX0RnOz5WRe0bT4UosPKxVbsM0wrWCzbRH7iIGDqMhKhbFI OmsA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=x/QXzAPKYoVlptpyzYDWk7jGDs1lp9OjFVGg4FszNmk=; b=ul06VjIywvaPmjar5MvHRHaj3chCWU3iKrUCg5XqPK9i+vNCiCLZuv2hzCWOBKH98M hrSii5YBluodT0NE9t13fOCu1Ppi8A1Yry5YoA0/dWGApPhNEyQ4lj0ewazvKALcBYzT 840xHZ8Gh++qxPPlOOHaulwUamW4xn8Jn3siBch9Au25WuKxP7YtXsDA8YP/pVN2lehk JK5lRW0Arxx/KBsa8LdUyJcSfm1sJfyK8uJ45QNoA4+DwlJuuGUlB7rsde/6MWrfjfU+ DZyJBahuR+xjcTqP8uGWso8GLSQMqDpHk0Rk61OmrX+kM5BDYd9fLoRJI0HJMnSvMTtS L18Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXd+OmVZqMG4ro+XVRZL0WYl4qwgEbLmEdd1KbCPkYjW01vB5MV xq8bwZ2miu0IHHuJkPpji/ALGbKIRRtP8+9QwxU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyv9yojZGLrPKO5Ie5PKYvCIOyUnZvVazO4ZP9EbCngXhtK6wDmojHB8zHoxqKE6jbZEZZKdkj2FrxDlCtCiUI=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:73d9:: with SMTP id m25mr11000055uaq.115.1560782849399; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Andy Hutton <>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:47:22 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Elwyn Davies <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:47:33 -0000

Thanks for these comments and see me comments below.

I assume that I will need to submit an update.


On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 23:13, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Document: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2019-05-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-05-16
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> Summary: Ready with nits.  Thanks for an easy to read document.  I am not sure
> about whether it is acceptable to point to an expired (and effectively totally
> dead) draft (draft-kaplan...) for signuficant motivation (see minor issues).
> Please consult with higher authorities.

As indicated by Alissa I think the reference is okay since the kaplan
draft is well known in the SIP industry and stable.

> Major issues:
> None
> Minor issues:
> S1, para 2: The discussion and motivation for the introduction of OSRTP is at
> least partially derived from the motivation explained in Section 1 of
> draft-kaplan-mmusic-best-effort-srtp.  This is a long expired draft (2007)
> which is not going to become an RFC.  Given this, I wonder if the text ought to
> be reproduced here, perhaps as an appendix?

I would prefer to leave it as it as was said previously the kaplan
draft is well known and stable.

> Nits/Editorial comments:
> Abstract: s./applied to Real-time/applied to the Real-time/

OK, thanks.

> Abstract: expand SDP on first use.

OK, thanks.

> Abstract: expand SRTP on first use (Secure RTP).

OK, thanks

> S1:  The sentences expanding the meaning of cleartext and secure media could do
> with a little expansion to make it clear that we are talking about media
> streams even if that is what RTP is supposed to be about. Suggest:
> OLD:
> In terms of secure media, cleartext is RTP [RFC3550] media which is negotiated
> with the RTP/AVP (Audio Video Profile) [RFC3551] or the RTP/AVPF profile
> [RFC4585]. Comprehensive protection is Secure RTP [RFC3711], negotiated with a
> secure profile, such as SAVP or SAVPF [RFC5124]. NEW: In the context of
> transport of secure media streams using RTP and its secured derivatives,
> cleartext is represented by an RTP [RFC3550] media stream which is negotiated
> with the RTP/AVP (Audio Video Profile) [RFC3551] or the RTP/AVPF profile
> [RFC4585], whereas comprehensive protection is represented by a Secure RTP
> [RFC3711] stream, negotiated with a secure profile, such as SAVP or SAVPF
> [RFC5124]. ENDS


> (I note that SAVP and SAVPF aren't acronyms and don't need expansion.  OTOH
> AVPF probably does.)
> S3: The terminology used in RFC 4566 and elsewhere seems to be m= sections
> rather than m-  sections.  Suggest s/m-/m=/g (4 places)


> S3.4, last sentence:  the backward reference to Section 3.1 is not in RFC
> format. s/section [3.1]/Section 3.1/


> S4, para 3:  I think the 'must' here is normative. s/ an encrypted signaling
> channel must still be used./ an encrypted signaling channel MUST still be used./

I think you are correct.

> S6: The note to the RFC Editor should also note that the referenceventries
> SIPCONNECT, RFC6982 and IMTC-SIP in s8 should also be removed.

I think I can just remove the section and references and save the RFC
Editor some work

> _______________________________________________
> Sipbrandy mailing list