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

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 09:31:44 -0700

Joel Jaeggli 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From Scott Bradner's Opsdir review:

I did an OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16.

This document describes a mechanism for recording SIP 
sessions, ostensibly, only with the knowledge of the SIP endpoints.

The document is clear and mature (which I would hope was
the case for a -16 working group ID).  In particular, the security 
considerations section seems quite well written to me.

I find no additional operational concerns beyond those 
present in running any secure SIP infrastructure.

I do observe that the stage upon which this standards
track ID is dancing on is rather close to the forbidden 
zone as described by RFC 2804. But the stage was 
selected when the working group was formed and it
 is too late to revisit if that was a stage that an IETF 
working group should be dancing on.