Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-
review-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-secdir-lc-perlman-2010-04-27-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2010-04-28 | |
Requested | 2010-04-15 | |
Authors | Randell Jesup , Tom Kristensen , Yekui Wang , Roni Even | |
I-D last updated | 2010-04-27 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by Radia Perlman
|
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Radia Perlman |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Completed | 2010-04-27 |
review-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-secdir-lc-perlman-2010-04-27-00
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