RTP Payload Format for Video Codec 1 (VC-1)
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vc1-06
Yes
(Allison Mankin)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(Brian Carpenter)
(David Kessens)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-01-31)
Unknown
The Security Considerations say: > > RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification > are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP > specification [4], and in any appropriate RTP profile. This implies > that confidentiality of the media streams is achieved by encryption; > for example, through the application of SRTP [11]. > This is good. I would like to see this expanded to cover integrity as well as confidentiality.
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-01-31)
Unknown
omment:
The document says:
Note that the appropriate mechanism to ensure confidentiality and
integrity of RTP packets and their payloads is very dependent on the
application and on the transport and signaling protocols employed.
Thus, although SRTP is given as an example above, other possible
choices exist.
This would be more useful with a pointer to at least one other example
and/or a discussion of the application issues which vary the means by
which confidentiality and integrity are assured.