Subject: [siprec] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 04:32:18 -0700

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-protocol/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Yee's Gen-ART review raised some good questions. For instance,
I thought these at least were important points:

Page 21, section 8.1.5, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: by “content” do you
actually mean “context”?  Or do you mean to the content of a SIPREC
recording?
...
Page 38, section 12, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: perhaps the word
“effective” would be more appropriate than characterizing it as an
“automatic” downgrade?

Page 38, section 12.1, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence: just because
an SRS is compromised does not mean that it cannot be authenticated.  It
may very well be operating “correctly” and be able to authenticate, yet
the compromise allows the attacker to obtain the (decrypted) RS.
Authentication does not imply that the SRS you are talking to is not
compromised.  It only indicates the SRS possesses some form of
credential
that appears to identify it correctly.