Early Review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-09
review-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-09-secdir-early-melnikov-2013-11-28-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2013-12-17 | |
Requested | 2013-05-23 | |
Authors | Magnus Westerlund | |
I-D last updated | 2013-11-28 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Russ Housley
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Russ Housley (diff) Secdir Early review of -09 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Bert Wijnen (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Alexey Melnikov |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-payload-rtp-howto by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 14) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2013-11-28 |
review-ietf-payload-rtp-howto-09-secdir-early-melnikov-2013-11-28-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document contains information on how to best write an RTP payload format specification. It provides reading tips, design practices, and practical tips on how to produce an RTP payload format specification quickly and with good results. A template is also included with instructions. The Security Considerations section of the document points out that while the document doesn't have direct security considerations, it contains suggestions about what security considerations should be thought about when writing a new RTP payload format. I found these suggestions (last two paragraphs of Section 3.2.2, Section 6.1 and Section 7.2) to be quite complete/good. So I think the document is ready for publication.