Subject: [AVT] IESG agenda: draft-ietf-msec-srtp-tesla-04.txt to Proposed Standard

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:30:35 -0700

Hi, AVT WG,

The MSEC Working Group's spec, Use of TESLA in SRTP, is on the IESG
agenda a week from now, brought in by Russ Housley.  The editors are
RTP/SRTP experts, so it's in good hands, but it would be good to have
extra AVT eyes on it.

Can a few folks give this a review before next Thursday,
preferably on the list?  Chairs, if you'd wrangle this, thanks!

Even sending just an "it's fine" message to Russ and me will
serve (maybe you checked it out during the Last Call so you can
do so right away).

Allison
Transport Area Director

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:41:24 +0100

Allison,

I reviewed this during last call. The latest version addresses my  
concerns, and I'm happy for it to move forward.

Colin

---

From: "Stephan Wenger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:14:04 +0300

I had a brief look and didn't catch any obvious problems.  A typo in the
Acknowledgements: Mats N?slund -> Mats Naeslund

Non-blocking question: at the first glance this seems also applicable to
SAVPF.  SAVPF is not mentioned, although Elisabetta is co-author in both
drafts.  Has this been discussed?

Regards,
Stephan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Allison Mankin
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. September 2005 17:31
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [AVT] IESG agenda: draft-ietf-msec-srtp-tesla-04.txt to
ProposedStandard 

Hi, AVT WG,

Allison
Transport Area Director

---

From: Mark Baugher <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:27:37 -0700

Stephan,

> Acknowledgements: Mats N?slund -> Mats Naeslund

Thanks.
> drafts.  Has this been discussed?

Not at all, to my knowledge.   If someone were interested in  
developing an SAVPF implementation of srtp-tesla, I think it would be  
time well spent to extend the specification.  Otherwise, I think we  
should keep the focus on SAVP.

Mark

---

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Sep 2005 11:30:28 -0400

Mark Baugher <[email-masked]> writes:
>Not at all, to my knowledge.   If someone were interested in  developing an
>SAVPF implementation of srtp-tesla, I think it would be  time well spent to
>extend the specification.  Otherwise, I think we  should keep the focus on
>SAVP.

        I should note that SAVP is never mentioned in the draft, so I see
no reason that it would apply to SAVP and not SAVPF, unless by referencing
RFC 3711 as a normative reference it limits itself.  All references are to
SRTP, and SRTP as a term should apply to both SAVP and SAVPF I would
assume - but I could be wrong, as RFC 3711 defines SRTP and defines SAVP as
the way to specify an SRTP transport channel.

        Practically, this would apply equally well to SAVPF with no
non-obvious modifications (i.e. average RTCP size calculation needs to 
include the TESLA MKI data, obviously).  IMHO.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Worldgate (developers of the Ojo videophone), ex-Amiga OS team
[email-masked]