From nobody Wed Jan 11 23:19:54 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E19B129409 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:19:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=packetizer.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S795ULKPDqFW for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:19:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B625129418 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:19:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from dyn-191.arid.us (cpe-098-122-167-029.nc.res.rr.com [98.122.167.29] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v0C7Jm3P006574 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 02:19:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1484205589; bh=wDwqMaQXw4GjGU0f8nV4S1JWISbebWbm2MyJryKqzdM=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:From; b=r3GBi4D2OsVH8dvHD3Vc3wF6EAeIzMg6v4WVgq+/btzJQjNPQ87lNONqno78544Pz QmbRMFAR/tujP/rlS/J4uK9eOPS5T7FRAGi+u/y6pUNMkKwWA2Uaxdh5pAO/qlRB2q KRidOE+VqMBgw2UksNtLEgmr/r93dtZMTzXcXuNE= Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 02:19:49 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <033b01d25909$72b72a70$58257f50$@gmail.com> References: <033b01d25909$72b72a70$58257f50$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----90EZWHK2JGUHVMJ9Y0RQOPV1925NXH" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: perc@ietf.org From: "Paul E. Jones" Message-ID: <40C0BD2E-9E2F-4869-9E90-93E397787024@packetizer.com> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.1 (dublin.packetizer.com [10.165.122.250]); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 02:19:49 -0500 (EST) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Perc] Review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-02 X-BeenThere: perc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 07:19:52 -0000 ------90EZWHK2JGUHVMJ9Y0RQOPV1925NXH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Roni, Time keeps passing, but I wanted to say thanks for the review=2E I'll try = to address your comments as soon as I can take a breath=2E=2E Quite busy t= hese days=2E Paul -------- Original Message -------- From: Roni Even Sent: December 18, 2016 3:33:45 AM EST To: perc@ietf=2Eorg Subject: [Perc] Review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-02 Hi, I reviewed draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-02 (volunteered to do i= t in Seoul" =20 I have some comments but in general the document is in good shape=2E =20 =20 1=2E Section 2 - endpoint - maybe use PERC endpoint instead of endpo= int since endpoint has many uses=2E 2=2E Section 2 - MD - typo "to to" 3=2E Section 2 - Key Distributer "which passes keying=2E" is it pass= es or maybe allocates or creates? 4=2E Section 2 - Conference - here you use trusted endpoints, this relates to my comment on endpoint above, you added a qualifier to the endpoint=2E 5=2E Section 2 - Third party - what is a "call processing" entity, i= t is not defined=2E 6=2E Section 3=2E1=2E1 second paragraph - "as the media distributer = does not have the ability =2E=2E" I assume this will be specified in a signaling dr= aft, so will we have a reference or just say it is out of scope? 7=2E Section 3=2E1=2E2 - I am not sure about the usage of "trusted" = in this paragraph=2E From the first paragraph I think trusted means PERC trusted,= yet the third paragraph is confusing, is it PERC trusted? 8=2E Section 3=2E2=2E1 use pre-PERC, I think you should say non-PERC= (it is not a time definition) 9=2E Section 4=2E2 figure 2, what about the MD x to MD y confidentia= lity=2E 10=2E Section 4=2E5 last paragraph, is HBH key between MDs is left out o= f scope, if yes say it in this paragraph=2E 11=2E In section 5=2E2 what is the conference signaling model=2E Is ther= e a central signaling entity here? Maybe it is time to add reference to RFC435= 3 and maybe say something about RFC4575=2E 12=2E Section 5=2E3 " the Key Distributor is responsible for knowing =2E= "=2E Is the KD responsible, I thnk the KD MUST know since the responsibility for allowing participants is on the "focus" or "conference manager"=2E=20 =20 =20 Roni Even =20 =20 =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Perc mailing list Perc@ietf=2Eorg https://www=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/perc ------90EZWHK2JGUHVMJ9Y0RQOPV1925NXH Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Roni,

Time keeps passing, but I wanted to say thanks for the review=2E I'll = try to address your comments as soon as I can take a breath=2E=2E Quite bu= sy these days=2E

Paul

From: Roni Even <ron=2Eeven=2Etlv@gmail=2Ecom>
Sent: December 18, 2016 3:33:45 AM EST
To: perc@ietf=2Eorg
Subject: [Perc] Review of draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-0= 2

Hi,

I reviewed draft-ietf-perc-priva= te-media-framework-02 (volunteered to do it in Seoul”

 

I have some comments b= ut in general the document is in good shape=2E

 

 

1=2E       Section 2 – endpoint - maybe use PERC end= point instead of endpoint since endpoint has many uses=2E

2=2E       Section 2 – MD – typo “t= o to”

= 3=2E  &n= bsp;    Section 2 &nd= ash; Key Distributer “which passes keying…” is it passes= or maybe allocates or creates?

4=2E       Section 2 – Conference – here you use trusted endpoints= , this relates to my comment on endpoint above, you added a qualifier to th= e endpoint=2E

5=2E  =      Section 2 &= ndash; Third party – what is a “call processing” entity, = it is not defined=2E

6=2E = ;      Sect= ion 3=2E1=2E1 second paragraph – “as the media distributer does= not have the ability =2E=2E” I assume this will be specified in a si= gnaling draft, so will we have a reference or just say it is out of scope?<= /p>

7=2E    &= nbsp;  Section 3=2E1=2E2 &ndash= ; I am not sure about the usage of “trusted” in this paragraph= =2E >From the first paragraph  I think trusted means PERC trusted, = yet the third paragraph is confusing, is it PERC trusted?

8=2E       Section 3=2E2=2E1 use pre-PERC, I think yo= u should say non-PERC (it is not a time definition)

9=2E       Section 4=2E2 figure 2, what about the MD x to M= D y confidentiality=2E

10=2E&n= bsp;  Section 4=2E5 last paragr= aph, is HBH key between MDs is left out of scope, if yes say it in this par= agraph=2E

11= =2E   In section 5=2E2 what is the conferenc= e signaling model=2E Is there a central signaling entity here? Maybe it is = time to add reference to RFC4353 and maybe say something about RFC4575=2E

12=2E   <= span dir=3D"LTR">Section 5=2E3 “ the Key Distributor is respon= sible for knowing …”=2E Is the KD responsible, I thnk the KD M= UST know since the responsibility for allowing participants is on the &ldqu= o;focus” or “conference manager”=2E

 

 

Roni Even

 

=  

 


Perc mailing list
Perc@ietf=2Eo=
rg
https://=
www=2Eietf=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/perc
------90EZWHK2JGUHVMJ9Y0RQOPV1925NXH--