Good plan. Great to see some progress. Thanks to you and Cullen.
DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
(As WG co-chair) You may remember that some time ago some work was identified that crossed multiple working groups in the RAI area on the above subject. Cullen took this ball away and played with it in a RAI BOF and there came to some consensus on the way forward and what documentation was required. However we now need to put that work through real working groups to get it to IESG so we are reallocating it to working groups. I have requested milestones as follows: Sep 2007 Requirements for media keying to WGLC (Informational) Nov 2007 Requirements for media keying to IESG (Informational) This will be WG milestones in support of progressing http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wing-media-security-requiremen ts-04.txt And incorporating draft-wing-rtpsec-keying-eval This charter item will essentially be a discussion of how we got where we are now. It is therefore not the most earthshattering document, but it has been considered valuable to retain some permanent record and an informational RFC is the way to do this. Dec 2007 Establishment of secure media sessions using DTLS-SRTP to WGLC (PS) Feb 2008 Establishment of secure media sessions using DTLS-SRTP to IESG (PS) This will be WG milestones in support of progressing http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fischl-sipping-media-dtls-03.t xt This charter item goes to SIP because it is security related, rather than to SIPPING. This is one deliverable out of a package of 3, the other two being: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fischl-mmusic-sdp-dtls-03.txt Which will be handled by AVT and MMUSIC respectively. What do you need to do as SIP WG members ---------------------------------------- Provide consensus or not to move these drafts forward. Do you agree with the identified author drafts above forming the basis of these charter items listed above? If not please express your objections to the list, with appropriate technical considerations. Indications of support are appropriate as well, particularly if you have a technical point you wish to make (alternatively address the WG chairs with just "Yes I support"). Responses please within a calendar week, i.e. by Tuesday 25th September 2007, unless there is a feeling that more time and discussion are needed. Regards Keith _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
