[video-codec] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09
Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 28 May 2019 17:35 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: video-codec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E3F120198; Tue, 28 May 2019 10:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-netvc-requirements.all@ietf.org, video-codec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <155906492120.25733.13337604572333992432@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 10:35:21 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/video-codec/dLRGUdIK2bc3NMpXD847DzcBLWo>
Subject: [video-codec] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netvc-requirements-09
X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list <video-codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/video-codec/>
List-Post: <mailto:video-codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 17:35:21 -0000
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document describes the overview of internet Video codec applications and the corresponding requirements. However, it doesn't cover any security requirement. Section 5 on Security Consideration description doesn't make sense to me. It stats that not covering worst case of computational complexity/memory bandwidth can be considered as security vulnerability and lead to denial of services (DoS) in the case of attacks. why ? what are "the worst case of computational complexity/memory bandwidth"? why covering them can eliminate the "security vulnerability"? Linda Dunbar
- [video-codec] Secdir last call review of draft-ie… Linda Dunbar via Datatracker
- Re: [video-codec] Secdir last call review of draf… Filippov Alexey