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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 07 March 2019 15:39 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 79D691277CD; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 07:39:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 kK1w1UJrg0vi; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 07:39:22 -0800 (PST)
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 D2A4C12DDA3; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 07:39:21 -0800 (PST)
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 x27FdCMa082994 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:39:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1551973155; bh=/+0uCPyLpoQi28dk0fNRWrSdJ/KzWKHoh+uA7KXhIbo=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=iBIvmVqSZ3S/8GiR8eScKClUE8N9frwY98nWSIT5AJ0SlP7H/Sa30fACQK3oFu70g Ef/dZJ5OZ0JgJqBrcicoVpfFr2YSxavGRDN5QKXJn9lh3CFLo5eHbOSxpCwpSYI4Cw YIrSh4hJE0oTnC2EZa/QMp+qk06FRZ51NB6MHg+Q=
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: <F986978F-8CEA-4F6A-A76F-BA0BFC459FFC@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F994FDEB-E88E-41E9-9A7E-CE4440BF43C8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:39:05 -0600
In-Reply-To: <E0A3AF92-F47F-4529-9AD4-8A500C8248E1@ericsson.com>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "sipbrandy@ietf.org" <sipbrandy@ietf.org>, "sipbrandy-chairs@ietf.org" <sipbrandy-chairs@ietf.org>, Datatracker on behalf of Benjamin Kaduk <noreply@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec@ietf.org>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <155196717799.15946.16638039906082946561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6066419A-7D0F-4A7E-80B7-340E1EB3A73A@nostrum.com> <20190307145920.GY9824@kduck.mit.edu> <E0A3AF92-F47F-4529-9AD4-8A500C8248E1@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/tUpsFKyjxzeHZwnzb3_bxBq85LA>
Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-07: (with DISCUSS and 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: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 15:39:25 -0000


> On Mar 7, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
>     And, just to verify (I may have asked this already earlier in the process), it is ok for a BCP to make normative updates to a Standards Track, right?
> 

That is my understanding. We usually treat BCPs as of equivalent maturity to the standards track. (sometimes even higher.)

Ben.