Re: [Sipbrandy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Peterson, Jon" <> Wed, 20 March 2019 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97171130F30; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.85, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 LlNExk0qmGse; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6EDC12AF7F; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id x2KHCd4A031329; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:19:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=selector1; bh=8y/l62C2DcBRROOcqU1bjGF6qB+LGgksW/wB4SOycu8=; b=B9rDoR6eezBPU9dTC70NRGexYj8mzL2zHlWTihKf6VPNGZXQ/bPUzWajO1WvZtbi37j6 VLhszmZrODPE3fxjv5KsLTF2amDYWKfm6nKS8KagB6325VTSOv5biurDtDRwUDwMVzZV aAEWnBfzz2pyRQDgPzhiD5ML2Yt19n9g+PDVxd99DXj/ireWtYBzg1r57Efbm52/IAR0 5+NLRwxN29kOKDpHO/dGxfPzkySNmhZSGFJ5bvtWMNnJM0QCdJk18O1FDGue0RGNZ/Am XBvlBOKD0NEkOliItVUJ4Qg9rV0sAB7FPYsZ+82I7JnRRrlfS9Ej2gPoMnftumWXHWHY XQ==
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 2ratb9c3x1-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:19:17 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::40e3:3b2:1d62:c68e]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:19:16 -0400
From: "Peterson, Jon" <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>, Ben Campbell <>
CC: Datatracker on behalf of Benjamin Kaduk <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, Gonzalo Camarillo <>
Thread-Topic: [Sipbrandy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHU1O4EU7VVOZWqIUy4dYiJeiNWuaYAle8AgAAAtgCAFA9JAA==
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 17:19:15 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-03-20_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903200128
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 17:19:29 -0000

    I'm not insisting on patches, no.
    The particular trigger for me here was the apparent construction of a
    compound document that is internally inconsistent.  Even de-indenting some
    of the text here might be enough to avoid that conflict (though I didn't
    actually check), as then we would have "commentary surrounding the update"
    that is not intended to be actually in force as part of the updated

I think you are correctly sensing here that we're a bit on the fence about whether this really "updates" RFC4916. We should get off that fence one way or another. At the end of section 4.3, we do kind of leave it to later work to do a real formal update of RFC4916 (that is alluding to the stir-connected-identity draft, very obliquely).  I would be happy to de-indent, and indeed I'd probably be fine removing the formal normative update of RFC4916 from the boilerplate. Really, the point of the text here is to say that if you were using RFC4916 with STIR for this purpose, you would have to do a couple of things differently. That doesn't mean RFC4916 is broken or requires modification outside of this use case.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.