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 <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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> siprec mailing list
> siprec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>