Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-10

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:14:05 -0700

This document just describes how to carry video in RTP. Apparently
there is a standard in ISO and a standard in ITU (ITU-T Recommendation
H.264 and ISO/IEC International Standard 14496 Part 10) that both
specify nearly identical compression algorithms for video encoding.
Given that this document is not describing the video encoding itself,
but just how to carry it in RTP, it is a little surprising that this
document is 104 pages, but it describes what to do about reordering,
lost packets, fragmentation across packet boundaries, and so forth.

There really are not any security considerations, and certainly not
anything they missed in their security considerations section. One
thing that might be nice to mention is that it is dangerous to do
encryption without integrity protection because a single bit error in
the ciphertext can cause a lot of errors in the plaintext.

Radia

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:20:47 -0700

Sorry secdir and iesg for sending this twice...I've been trying to
figure out how to use the tools thing to get all the authors, and
apparently didn't do it right, so I'll manually put in the authors
names like I have done before, on previous secdir reviews.
(sending to [email-masked] bounced)

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:49:02 +0300

Hi Radia,
This is a video payload specification and the length of the document is
mostly because the big number of optional parameters that can be negotiated
and the offer answer behavior for the parameters. The 3984bis draft updates
RFC 3984 based on implementation on experience, explaining the issues that
came to the mailing list on offer answer issues.
As for the reordering of packets this are RTP issues and not the codec
issues.

Thanks
Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radia Perlman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:21 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-10
>