Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andy,

if you do not see any issue here, then you sure won't have any trouble
responding to Ben's original question below, which is what the ADs are
actually after, right? ;-) Thanks!

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 11/10/2016 3:56 PM, Andy Hutton wrote:
> I am not sure what this issue is here I thought we were heading towards
> consensus during IETF96 to make the OSRTP draft PS and get the AD's to
> fix the charter.
> 
> We discussed the possibility of splitting the draft and taking a small
> draft to MMUSIC with the normative parts but I think we had consensus
> that this did not make sense and we should just fix the charter,
> 
> Regards
> Andy
> 
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> 
>     All,
> 
>     please, note that as you all know the SIPBRANDY WG is chartered not to
>     produce PS specs. So, if we do not provide Ben with some arguments for
>     making this draft PS, it will *not* be a PS. Comments?
> 
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipbrandy/charter/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipbrandy/charter/>
> 
>     > The working group is not expected to define new protocols or modify
>     > existing ones; rather it will define practices for using existing
>     > protocols.
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>     Gonzalo
> 
>     On 23/09/2016 8:58 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > for context, Ben's question relates to the following paragraph in the
>     > minutes of the last SIPBRANDY session:
>     >
>     > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy
>     <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy>
>     >
>     >> The group agreed on advancing the osrtp draft as Proposed
>     >> Standard. However, the SIPBRANDY WG is not chartered to develop new
>     >> protocol mechanisms. Ben, the resposible area director for the
>     >> SIPBRANDY WG, will look into this and get back to the group with a
>     >> final plan. In the meantime, the working assumption is that the
>     >> intended status of the osrtp draft will be Proposed Standard.
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     >
>     > Gonzalo
>     >
>     > On 23/09/2016 3:28 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> In the discussions about what status OSRTP should be, I was under the
>     >> impression that people thought that the draft modified (or violated)
>     >> some normative statement about using encryption with AVP rather than
>     >> SAVP. Can anyone point me to the specifics?
>     >>
>     >> Thanks!
>     >>
>     >> Ben.
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Sipbrandy mailing list
>     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>
>     >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sipbrandy mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>
> 
>