[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[AVT] IESG Review of draft-ietf-avt-mpeg4-simple-07.txt - Discuss Comments
- To: jan.vandermeer@philips.com, dmackie@apple.com, viswanathan.swaminathan@sun.com, singer@apple.com, philippe.gentric@philips.com
- Subject: [AVT] IESG Review of draft-ietf-avt-mpeg4-simple-07.txt - Discuss Comments
- From: Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:19:00 -0700
- Cc: casner@acm.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, csp@csperkins.org, smb@research.att.com, ned.freed@mrochek.com, mankin@psg.com, avt@ietf.org
- List-help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>,<mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>,<mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Reply-to: mankin@psg.com
- Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
The IESG reviewed draft-ietf-avt-mpeg4-simple-07.txt and had a few concerns
that should be addressed before the draft can advance. Editorially:
Comment: It is strange to have more than one section labeled
"Introduction." Please pick a new label for section 2.1.
Steve Bellovin and Ned Freed both request that a reference be given in
the Security Considerations for security model for ECMAscript. Here
is Steve's Discuss comment:
Where is the security model defined for ECMAScript in this context?
(Problems with the model have been part of the Javascript security
problem for Web browsers.)
Steve also asked:
2.4: Why is this form of application-level fragmentation better than
IP fragmentation?
Please discuss the issues in email and we'll see if the fixes to the draft
can be done as notes rather than a revised i-d, to be quicker.
Allison
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt