Re: [Sipbrandy] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 28 May 2019 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B86C120229; Tue, 28 May 2019 08:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 5zWx6PREeW3W; Tue, 28 May 2019 08:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 697791201F3; Tue, 28 May 2019 08:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bens-macbook.lan (cpe-66-25-20-105.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.20.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x4SF3sZs043397 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 28 May 2019 10:03:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1559055837; bh=j/RFRi4KLrw9T5n9DLtPrFGhXkd+spA5LWK1cZV/94k=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=T4toj53/tRfPf1O2Evsd94N4OHinCSohqTyMBH24Mdrt4eavclPdXu/7jQy5V/+gV 2/rFZHd6RnUkLVRMBzd+mxwGrSFuePAQ2dYymxxZJIX8nqT9vqI03Nsybw4wOZiS09 MGsI9TftmHVW6jn5pUEV6ofRa7fYO4Dqr7Pf9DEQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-20-105.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.20.105] claimed to be bens-macbook.lan
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <C79C4B59-2DC2-4DF8-B68A-7DCCB87EBFA1@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F02A078A-34C5-43A8-A3AD-17DEB40D4A34"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 10:03:48 -0500
In-Reply-To: <155903721225.25618.16702710214584112001.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp@ietf.org, sipbrandy@ietf.org, sipbrandy-chairs@ietf.org, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <155903721225.25618.16702710214584112001.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/W89PvgzKAPM83pmpl4z3p-FHYEA>
Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list <sipbrandy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipbrandy/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipbrandy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 15:04:12 -0000


> On May 28, 2019, at 4:53 AM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 


[…]

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I share the question of why this is Informational and why the shepherd writeup
> doesn't explain (the writeup says little more than "yes" and "no").
> 

This was discussed quite a bit in the WG and prior to chartering. The reasoning for “informational” was two-fold:

1) The draft does not (or was not supposed to) define new or modify existing protocols. It talks about how one can assemble existing building blocks to make the right things happen, not how to build new blocks. So it seemed like the most appropriate status was either “informational” or “BCP"

2) Two of those “existing protocols”, namely ZRTP [RFC6189] and SDP Security Descriptions [RFC4568] are not particularly well regarded among some of our security experts, who indicated objections to using them in a new standards track document or BCP.

From a strictly historical perspective, the WG originally thought it needed to make a normative update to RFC5124. This was to be done is a separate tightly-scoped draft to progress in MMUSIC, since SIPBRANDY was not chartered to make normative changes to anything. However, later discussion suggested such a change was not necessary, and the separate draft was abandoned.

I agree that the shepherd report or (my preference) the draft itself should make this more clear. Perhaps
some words could be added to section 1.1?

Thanks!

Ben (who has no unexpired hats relevant to this conversation).