Subject: [Perc] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-perc-double-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 18:46:39 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-perc-double-10: 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-perc-double/

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

Thanks for this draft.  A few comments:

(1) Section 5.1.  Step 5.  Is the “protected RTP packet” the same as the
“synthetic” RTP packet?  If so, I recommend using consistent language.

(2) Section 5.1. Step 5.   Recommend making this text, “append an empty OHB
(0x00) to the encrypted payload (with the authentication tag)”, more explicit
in stating that concatenation of bytes is encrypted payload + authentication
tag + OHB.

(3) Editorial:
** Section 5.2.  Typo. s/the the/the/
** Please review the editorial comments in the SECDIR review
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-perc-double-10-secdir-lc-perlman-2018-10-31/