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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On May 28, 2019, at 4:53 AM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 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).