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

["Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>]

Paul,

Thanks for the review. I will fix the below nits.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: siprec <[e-mail]> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat
<[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, 20 March 2016 at 11:07 PM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [siprec] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>Hi Ram,
>
>This looks good. I saw a couple of nits while reviewing the changes:
>
>* Section 6.1.2:
>
>    CSs and CS-Groups are optional to accommodate persistent recording,
>    where there may sometimes be none.  ...
>
>That statement is correct WRT CS-Groups, but not CSs. CSs have much more
>relevance, and aren't optional for recording. So I would simply omit
>"CSs and " from the above.
>
>* Section 6.9:
>
>Your global change from <...> to '...' notation seems to have missed
>this section.
>
>	Thanks,
>	Paul
>
>On 3/19/16 1:54 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Monday, 7 March 2016 at 6:30 PM
>> To: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: Friday, 4 March 2016 at 7:45 PM
>>> To: Cisco Employee <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: "[e-mail]"
>>> <[e-mail]>, Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>,
>>> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> siprec mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>siprec mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec