Subject: [Sipbrandy] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 05:59:57 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-07: 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-sipbrandy-rtpsec/

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

* Section 4.3.

I had a hard time understanding this updated text. Either this is incorrect
(e.g. Should this refer to 8224 instead of 4474?) or it needs some
clarification.

"The examples in [RFC4916] are based on the original [RFC4916], and will not
match signatures using [RFC4474]."

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:00:00 -0600

> On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> match signatures using [RFC4474].”

That is an error. It should say:

"The examples in [RFC4916] are based on the original [RFC4474], and will not match signatures using [RFC8224].””

 IIUC, the authors have fixed it in the working copy.

Thanks!

Ben.