Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Tom Kristensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:54:47 +0200

On 5 March 2015 at 16:28, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13: No Objection
>

[...]

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> - section 7: As in other cases, this might be better to refer
> to the generic UTA work rather than have it's own list of
> preferred ciphersuites.
>

The main reason for this is the fact that this is an extension of an
existing RFC and that the current version of BFCP will continue to live and
existing implementations will not be updated.

- I wondered why you'd not just moved all the way to make TLS
> mutual-auth mandatory to use for this.
>

Of the same reasons SRTP and other protocols/channels in this (for the
most/currently SIP based) world does not rely on mutual-auth, more
deployment friendly alternatives are specified and used.

-- Tom

-- 
# Cisco                         |  http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/
## [email-masked]  |  http://www.tandberg.com
###                               |  http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/