Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Oops, s/MUST not record/MUST NOT record

On 14 Mar 2016, at 17:19, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> The below seems good to me.
>
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
>
> On 3/14/16 3:16 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> On 9 Mar 2016, at 23:20, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>
>>> Some implementations may have the SRC choose parts of metadata that
>>> can be
>>>> sent to the SRS.
>>>> In other cases, SRCs may send metadata that is not appropriate for
>>>> the SRS
>>>> to record. Which
>>>>   metadata is actually recorded by the SRS must be carefully
>>>> considered to
>>>> balance privacy
>>>> concerns with usability. Implementations MUST control what metadata is
>>>> recorded, and MUST NOT
>>>>   save metadata sent by the SRC that does not conform to the recording
>>>> policy of the SRS.
>>>> Metadata in storage needs to be provided with a level of security
>>>> that is
>>>> comparable to that
>>>> of the recording session.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> An SRC MAY, by policy, choose to limit the parts of the metadata sent to
>>> the SRS for recording. And the SRS MAY not need all the metadata it
>>> receives or choose, by policy, to limit the metadata it records.
>>> Metadata in storage needs to be provided with a level of security that
>>> is comparable to that of the recording session.
>>
>>
>> I think that helps, but might need a couple of tweaks:
>>
>> - The 2nd MAY seems more a statement of fact.
>>
>> - I think the concept that the SRS MUST NOT record unneeded metatdata
>> came from the discussion with Stephen, so I am hesitant to suggest
>> removing the 2119 language. How about something like:
>>
>> "An SRC MAY, by policy, choose to limit the parts of the metadata sent
>> to the SRS for recording. And the policy of the SRS might not require
>> all the metadata it receives. For the sake of data minimization, the SRS
>> MUST not record additional metadata that is not explicitly required by
>> local policy. Metadata in storage needs to be provided with a level of
>> security that is comparable to that of the recording session."
>>
>> (But on the other hand, if Stephen has already agreed to the previous
>> language, then I would hesitate to change it more than necessary.)
>>
>> Ben.
>>