Use Cases and Requirements for SIP-Based Media Recording (SIPREC)
draft-ietf-siprec-req-12

[Ballot discuss]
There's an error in how my discuss was handled. Can be fixed via
-12 or an RFC editor note, but really should be fixed.

OLD:

  With regards to security implications of the protocol(s), clearly
  there is a need for authentication, authorization, eavesdropping, and
  protection for the solution.

NEW:

  With regards to security implications of the protocol(s), clearly
  there is a need for authentication, authorization and eavesdropping
  protection for the solution.

[Ballot comment]
(1) "Furthermore, the scale and cost burdens vary widely, in all
markets, where the different needs for solution capabilities such as
media injection, transcoding, and security-related needs do not
conform well to a one-size-fits-all model." That could do with being
rephrased, I had to read it a few times before I got the message that
one size doesn't easily fit all.

(2) In figure 2, I assume that time runs from left to right but you
might want to say that, e.g. add "t --->" at the bottom. If its meant
to be something else, then you definitely want to say what.

(3) REQ-005 - I think the "without loss of media" refers to the RS
but not the CS - is that right? Maybe worth clarifying.

(4) Just asking: REQ-019 is good, but was there any discussion about
how much information to make available to a UA? E.g. whether or not
card numbers won't be recorded.

[Ballot discuss]
I think this is a bunch of what should be fairly easily resolved
things.

(2) I don't understand REQ-025's statement about the "same or
different" encryption keys, and I suspect that the requirement, as
stated,  might lead to bad designs, e.g. adding bad key export APIs
to products. I think stating this in terms of keys is mistaken, it
should probably be stated in terms of restricting access to the media
(or something like that, not sure).

(4) What non-repudiation requirements exist here? Put another way,
who is expected to repudiate what, and how is that supposed to be
prevented? Including NR might lead to significant complexity if not
fairly tightly constrained.  I'd suggest just dropping mention of NR,
unless there are specific requirements known at this point.

(5) The security considerations says: "Means for ensuring the
integrity and correctness of media and metadata emitted by an SRC are
outside the scope of this work.  Other organizational and technical
controls will need to be used to prevent tampering." That however,
seems to conflict with REQ-029 at least.  Perhaps something else was
meant, or I'm just confused?

[Ballot comment]
REQ-012 refers to "the identities of parties involved". The term "identity" is vague. I suggest changing "identities" to "identifiers" or, even better, "SIP identifiers" or "SIP addresses".

In REQ-024, what is "wall clock time"?

Regarding terms such as "authentication", "confidentiality", "encryption", and "integrity" in REQ-025 through REQ-032, an informational reference to RFC 4949 seems appropriate.

[Ballot comment]
(1) "Furthermore, the scale and cost burdens vary widely, in all
markets, where the different needs for solution capabilities such as
media injection, transcoding, and security-related needs do not
conform well to a one-size-fits-all model." That could do with being
rephrased, I had to read it a few times before I got the message that
one size doesn't easily fit all.

(2) In figure 2, I assume that time runs from left to right but you
might want to say that, e.g. add "t --->" at the bottom. If its meant
to be something else, then you definitely want to say what.

(3) REQ-005 - I think the "without loss of media" refers to the RS
but not the CS - is that right? Maybe worth clarifying.

(4) Just asking: REQ-019 is good, but was there any discussion about
how much information to make available to a UA? E.g. whether or not
card numbers won't be recorded.

[Ballot discuss]
I think this is a bunch of what should be fairly easily resolved
things.

(1) REQ-017 (and -018) if "policy" says not to honour the request of
the UA, then what is required to happen? Do you need a requirement
to tell the UA that the request hasn't been honoured? (If you say "no"
that's fine, but then is probably worth saying explicitly.)

(2) I don't understand REQ-025's statement about the "same or
different" encryption keys, and I suspect that the requirement, as
stated,  might lead to bad designs, e.g. adding bad key export APIs
to products. I think stating this in terms of keys is mistaken, it
should probably be stated in terms of restricting access to the media
(or something like that, not sure).

(3) What, if any, requirements apply to the case where the UA is not
recording-aware? I could imagine a use-case where a call-centre
agent's UA (presumably recording-aware) is notified that the agent
(the human) should tell the caller about recording, and that use-case
might lead to some requirements, between the SRS and SRC or the SRC
and the agent's UA, but I don't see any such requirements here.
(There is mention of this in the privacy considerations section but
there are no requirements.)

(4) What non-repudiation requirements exist here? Put another way,
who is expected to repudiate what, and how is that supposed to be
prevented? Including NR might lead to significant complexity if not
fairly tightly constrained.  I'd suggest just dropping mention of NR,
unless there are specific requirements known at this point.

(5) The security considerations says: "Means for ensuring the
integrity and correctness of media and metadata emitted by an SRC are
outside the scope of this work.  Other organizational and technical
controls will need to be used to prevent tampering." That however,
seems to conflict with REQ-029 at least.  Perhaps something else was
meant, or I'm just confused?

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Use Cases and Requirements for SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the SIP Recording WG (siprec) to
consider the following document:
- 'Use Cases and Requirements for SIP-based Media Recording (SIPREC)'
  as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-04-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-req/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-req/

(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?
I [John Elwell ] am the Document Shepherd, I have personally reviewed this version and
I believe it is ready for forwarding to the IESG.

(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 had extensive review from during its development,
involving most/all active members of WG and discussion of open issues
during meetings and interims.

(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 concerns. In particular, we engaged the services of a privacy expert
to review requirements relating to privacy.

(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.
No concerns or issues. No IPR disclosures.

(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?
There is strong consensus, and furthermore the WG is using these
requirements to guide its work on solution.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise 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.)
No

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?
The document passes IDNITS. Other reviews such as MIB Doctor are not
applicable.

(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].
There are only normative references - no informative. All normative
references are published RFCs and there are no downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration 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 [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
IANA section exists - there are no IANA actions.

(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?
Not applicable.

(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
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
This document summarizes the requirements for a SIP-based mechanism for
controlling a session (media) recorder, taking into account any special
security or privacy considerations as well as the distinction between
the session that is being recorded and the session established for the
purpose of recording.

Working Group Summary
Was there anything in 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 were no particularly controversial issues, although significant
time was spent working on requirements relating to privacy and
notifications.

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?
The document has been reviewed by participants within the IETF SIPREC
WG, including representatives from traditional SIP vendors as well as
from session recording vendors.

John