Re: [Speermint] AD review: draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I still do not seem to have received any answer (see email below).

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 16/12/2010 4:32 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I do not seem to have received an answer to my email below. If I have
> missed it, could you please resend it?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> On 16/11/2010 1:49 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks for having submitted a new revision of this draft:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-06
>>
>> This revision addresses most of my comments below. However, I do not
>> think I got an answer to the following question:
>>
>>> While message modification and eavesdropping is included in the
>>> threats against SF and MF, they do not seem to appear in the threats
>>> against LRF and LUF. Why?
>>
>> Also, the reasons why Section 4.5 recommends TCP over UDP are still not
>> clear. UDP over DTLS would meet the requirements in both Sections 3.2
>> and 4.5.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> On 29/09/2010 5:15 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> a couple of days ago I received a publication request for the following
>>> draft:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats/
>>>
>>> Here you have my AD review of the draft (see below). The authors should
>>> be able to address all my comments fairly quickly. As soon as they
>>> revise the draft I will initiate its IETF LC.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-05
>>>
>>> Expand acronyms on their first use (e.g., SPEERMINT in the title and
>>> VoIP in the Introduction).
>>>
>>> The Abstract and the Introduction attempt to explain the relationship
>>> between this draft and draft-ietf-speermint-requirements. However,
>>> Section 3.1 does a better job at that. Could you please clarify in the
>>> Introduction that the requirements in draft-ietf-speermint-requirements
>>> were derived from the threats documented in this draft? Also, please
>>> clarify that in addition to be the base for those requirements, this
>>> draft provides countermeasures to meet those requirements. Any SPEERMINT
>>> expert will probably understand that by reading the Abstract and the
>>> Introduction but clarifying those points will help readers who have not
>>> been that involved in the process.
>>>
>>> While message modification and eavesdropping is included in the
>>> threats against SF and MF, they do not seem to appear in the threats
>>> against LRF and LUF. Why?
>>>
>>> Section 4.5 recommends to use TCP instead of UDP. That advice is great,
>>> but the reasons Section 4.5 discusses are not that strong. The fact that
>>> the linux kernel has improved is irrelevant if an operator uses
>>> non-linux boxes. Also, an operator using UDP over IPsec, for instance,
>>> will not face the problems described there. The main recommendation in
>>> Section 4.5 seems to actually be to use an integrity protection
>>> mechanism. Clarifying that section would be useful.
>>>
>>> [refs.sbcfuncs] has been published as RFC 5853
>>>
>>> A few references only include the title and the author fields. Adding
>>> the venue where they were published would be useful.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speermint mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speermint mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
>