ietf
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [AVTCORE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-14.txt> (Securing the RTP Protocol Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution) to Informational RFC

2013-12-09 17:13:42
from [Martin Thomson] [Permanent Link] 
On 9 December 2013 14:59, Colin Perkins <csp(_at_)csperkins(_dot_)org> wrote:

If some part of the draft is unclear about this, and can possibly be 
interpreted to allow insecure use of RTP, please explain what, and we will 
fix it.


Let me theorize a little: the draft name
(draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory) might generate some false
reactions.  Thankfully, that's not going to appear in an RFC.
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: I-D Action: draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-04.txt, Arturo Servin
Next by Date:  RE: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
Previous by Thread:  Re: [AVTCORE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-14.txt> (Securing the RTP Protocol Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution) to Informational RFC, Colin Perkins
Next by Thread:  Re: [AVTCORE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-14.txt> (Securing the RTP Protocol Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution) to Informational RFC, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]