We're ready to request publication of the Media Security Requirements.
Here's the draft writeup. Please review, and publish any issues back
to myself and the list. If there are no issues, I plan to submit the
pub request by the end of the week.
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
The Document Shepherd is SIP WG chair Dean Willis, who has reviewed
the document and believes it is ready for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
The document has been adequate reviewed inside the WG, and
additionally reviewed by OMA. The shepherd has no concerns about the
reviews.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization, or XML?
No.
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this
document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.
The shepherd is aware of no relevant issues.
(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?
Working group consensus on this document is very strong.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.
(It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)
The shepherd is unaware of any reservoir of extreme discontent related
to this draft.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the
document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
The document reasonably passes all nit checks, with the exception of
several out-of-date references that do not impact the specification.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents
that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative
references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
References are appropriately divided. All normative references are to
stable documents.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG
Evaluation?
The document contains no IANA actions and specified no revew process.
(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
The document contains no formal language.
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
This document describes requirements for a protocol to negotiate a
security context for SIP-signaled SRTP media. In addition to the
natural security requirements, this negotiation protocol must
interoperate well with SIP in certain ways. A number of proposals
have been published and a summary of these proposals is in the
appendix of this document.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?
There was considerable controvery about the inclusion of requirements
related to key disclosure. The 3GPP community wished to include a
requirement that arguably enabled MITM attacks -- essentially
requiring that the media key always be disclosed to signaling path
elements, such that lawful intercept can be exceuted without the
awareness of the endpoints. This requirement was excluded from the
final version of the document.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?
If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert
Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media
Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?
Security adviser Eric Rescorla was actively involved in reviewing the
requirements, as they apply to the SRTP/DTLS framework for which he is
the editor.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is
the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
The Document Shepherd is Dean Willis. The Responsible Area Director is
Cullen Jennings. No IANA experts are required.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.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
