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

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

Paul,

One comment please see inline

-----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.

Above statement is for persistent recording case where the RS may be setup
between SRC (say endpoint like voip phone) and SRS even before any CS is
setup.
Once CS is setup, the persistent RS dialog will be used to record the RS
rather than setting up another RS. This statement is to indicate the same.

Regards,
Ram

>
>* 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