Re: AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-20 - Ben's substantive comments

Hi,

Substantive Comments:

>>> - section 4: "If an offer or answer does not
>>>    contain a ¹dtls-id¹ attribute (this could happen if the offerer or
>>>    answerer represents an existing implementation that has not been
>>>    updated to support the ¹dtls-id¹ attribute), the offer or answer 
>>>    MUST be treated as if no ¹dtls-id¹ attribute is included. "
>>>
>>> That seems to say that if dtls-id is not included, the offer or 
>>> answer must be treated as if it's not included. Since that's 
>>> tautologically true, I suspect you meant to say something more?
>>
>> This is related to the first sentence, saying that there is no default 
>> value defined for the attribute.
>>
>> I could say "Hence, if an offer or answer does not contain", if it 
>> makes the text more clear.
>
> You would still get a sentence of the form "If not foo, then not foo." 
> Perhaps the predicate clause could be recast as the consequences or (high level) receiver behavior 
> when dtls-id not being present? Does the absence mean that the session is not setup? That the receiver assumes 
> the sender is a legacy implementation?

That the receiver assumes the sender is a legacy implementation.

Maybe something like:

   "No default value is defined for the SDP 'dtls-id' attribute.
   Implementations that wish to use the attribute MUST explicitly
   include it in SDP offers and answers.  If an offer or answer does not
   contain a 'dtls-id' attribute (this could happen if the offerer or
   answerer represents an existing implementation that has not been
   updated to support the 'dtls-id' attribute), unless there is
   another mechanism to explicitly indicate that a new DTLS association
   is to be established, a modification of one or more of the following
   characteristics MUST be treated as an indication that an endpoint
   wants to establish a new DTLS association:" 

...

>>> -10:
>>>
>>> If you accept my suggestion to move from 4474 to 4474bis in the 
>>> updated text for 5763, that will create changes that should probably 
>>> be mentioned here. For example, 4474bis signatures cover fewer things 
>>> than do 4474 signatures. The hope that 4474bis may be more deployable 
>>> than 4474, and therefore really used, may also be worth a mention 
>>> here.
>>
>> RFC 5763 contains 20+ references to RFC 4474, in a number of different 
>> sections.
>>
>> We would have to update all of those sections (at least the reference, 
>> possibly also normative text), because I don¹t think we should mix
>> 4474 and 4474bis. In my opinion, that should be done as a separate task.
>
> I scanned 5763 for the references to see if we could reasonably say that all references should be updated. 
> But there's some text on the limitations of identity for phone numbers that might become obsolete if we did that.
> SO I can be convinced to leave that out of scope for this update. But it's still a bit unfortunate :-)
>
> Would it make sense for this document to contain a paragraph somewhere mentioning that, since the publication 
> of 5763, RFC4474 is being updated to address some of those issues, and that implementors should at least consider 
> moving to it? The reason I push on this is that I have hopes that 4474bis can enable the dtls-srtp framework to be 
> used in a more secure fashion that typical for now, since we have such limited deployment of 4474.

"NOTE: Since the publication of RFC 5763, RFC 4474 has been obsoleted by draft-ietf-stir-4474bis. The updating of the references (and the
associated procedures) within RFC 5763 is outside the scope of this document. However, implementers of RFC 5763 applications are 
encouraged to implement draft-ietf-stir-4474bis instead of RFC 4474."

Feel free to modify, if you e.g., want to give more background etc about 4474bis.

Regards,

Christer

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic