RE: [AVT] Updates to draft-ietf-avt-ulp

["Adam Li" <adamli at hyervision.com>]

Hi Colin,

Thanks a lot for the comments. The draft is updated with the
recommendations, and a new revision (-16) is just submitted to the ID
manager. 

About Section 11 "Security Considerations", FEC can be applied either before
or after encryption. Both cases are valid cases, so I kept both of them. As
discussed in paragraph 2, when FEC is applied after, the FEC data is secure,
so no additional security measure is needed. When FEC is applied before, the
FEC data need to be encrypted as well. The rest of the section (from
paragraph 3 and on) focuses on the security considerations for that
scenario. 

Thank you.

Adam


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp at csperkins.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:43 AM
> To: Adam Li
> Cc: IETF-AVT
> Subject: Re: [AVT] Updates to draft-ietf-avt-ulp
> 
> Adam, all,
> 
> On 23 Feb 2006, at 02:46, Adam Li wrote:
> > An updated version of the ULP draft has just been submitted. It may
> > also be
> > obtained through anonymous FTP at
> > ftp://ftp.hyervision.com/pub/IETF/ULP/draft-ietf-avt-ulp-15.txt
> > before the
> > ID manager updates the database.
> 
> I have some minor comments after a careful reading of this latest
> version:
> 
> For consistency with other RTP Payload Formats, and to meet RFC
> Editor guidelines for acronym expansion, please change the title to
> "RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction".
> 
> In figures 1 and 2, I suggest changing the label from "RTP Header" to
> "RTP Header (at least 12 octets)".
> 
> The introduction to Section 7.3 is ungrammatical. Can you reword the
> first sentence ("The RTP header for FEC packets are used..."),
> perhaps as "...is only used..."?
> 
> Section 11 should be renamed to "Security Considerations".
> 
> The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of section 11 are a little confusing. Is
> there a use case for encryption before FEC? If not, it might be
> easier just to state that FEC must be done before encryption, remove
> the 2nd paragraph, and clarify the 3rd.
> 
> Can you quickly update the draft to address these (before the
> deadline next Monday)?
> 
> > Most of the comments received in WGLC are updated into the latest
> > version of
> > the draft. Thanks a lot for Mark's detailed reading and
> > suggestions. I have
> > some line-by-line comments on the comments from Mark as following.
> 
> We'll wait for confirmation from Mark that the updates address his
> concerns before proceeding.
> 
> Colin



_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt