IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [siprec] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Sat, 19 March 2016 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2B112D5C8 for <siprec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 kHPVaI0LuJ-d for <siprec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44B8112D5AF for <siprec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2245; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458366893; x=1459576493; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=KFEE6ZFw3xVtbLdWQnMxBSITD3JMvxcqB8JQz1D+2Jc=; b=CimrgyQpCDWv56xVuY+sNJMBtjz8Y8cJeQvlVBxmcJjs/rf5d2KBAatB vnHKnWjxKd/NMx9zLtteogBzJ+wPTcep7hlw9RQEn/dwGZcZn0WU4CdlB YIZuZYhqDhOFMVzCxFlJDWVP77OJG/muCqN8UgKo4OrR0DzTo2n39Hrw3 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AyAgDS6OxW/4gNJK1egzNTcga4AYIPAQ2BbyGFbAKBLTgUAQEBAQEBAWQnhEEBAQEEDiwrFAwEAgEIEQMBAh8QMh0IAgQOBYgnDsAmAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEQSKYoQmhWwFl1cBhXCIE4FlhEqDJ4QWgRuPBQEeAQFCgjCBNWqJKTx+AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,359,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="250351830"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Mar 2016 05:54:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com (xch-rtp-018.cisco.com [64.101.220.158]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2J5spHZ003497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 19 Mar 2016 05:54:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) by XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com (64.101.220.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 01:54:51 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 01:54:50 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Thread-Topic: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRgaPZeijAFrzq+Eyq9lGq9WaIgA==
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 05:54:50 +0000
Message-ID: <D312E982.5567D%rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <20160302110853.23213.23639.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D2FD2694.5326B%rmohanr@cisco.com> <56D9989F.1010103@cs.tcd.ie> <D303791D.53A11%rmohanr@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D303791D.53A11%rmohanr@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.1.160122
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.65.53.103]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <0D80198AF06EF04CB8E6D36434684F58@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/siprec/bNFe3bpFGCUL7afvDPk3R_WvEr0>
Cc: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [siprec] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: siprec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Recording Working Group Discussion List <siprec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/siprec>, <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/siprec/>
List-Post: <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec>, <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 05:54:55 -0000

Hi Stephen,

I have published a new revision that addresses your DISCUSS and COMMENTS.
Please review and let us know your feedback.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-metadata/


Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-21

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com>
Date: Monday, 7 March 2016 at 6:30 PM
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>Ok. I will add the below text to the security consideration section.
>
>Ram
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>Date: Friday, 4 March 2016 at 7:45 PM
>To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>Cc: "draft-ietf-siprec-metadata@ietf.org"
><draft-ietf-siprec-metadata@ietf.org>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>,
>"siprec-chairs@ietf.org" <siprec-chairs@ietf.org>, "siprec@ietf.org"
><siprec@ietf.org>
>Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20:
>(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
>>>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.
>>>Would this be better ? Or else we will have to replicate most of the
>>>text
>>>from Protocol to here again.
>>
>>Yes, that's good, and no I'd not replicate text from the protocol
>>spec, your reference with a MUST above is fine. (I re-read the
>>security considerations of the protocol spec, and I think it covers
>>things well enough.)
>>
>>Thanks,
>>S.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email