Subject: [siprec] Comments on draft-ietf-siprec-req-04

From: "Henry Lum" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:29:21 -0700

- REQ-030 and REQ-033 don't relate to the subheading security; only -029
and -032 are

- REQ-040 seem to be missing a word in the sentence:
"REQ-040 The mechanism SHALL provide means for an SRS to authenticate
SRC on RS initiation."

- REQ-060/061: I am a little fuzzy about what integrity actually means
for media and metadata. Can someone explain? 

- REQ-072: I am uneasy about this requirement as it indicates that we
endorse the idea of an SRC tapping into a CS without notifying the
participants. We already have requirement REQ-024 to provide a means to
provide indications to the participants. Whether the SRC does this or
not is up to the actual deployment, and I believe REQ-024 alone is
sufficient to handle this situation.

Regards,
Henry

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files attached may contain confidential and proprietary information of Alcatel-Lucent and/or its affiliated entities. Access by the intended recipient only is authorized. Any liability arising from any party acting, or refraining from acting, on any information contained in this e-mail is hereby excluded. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, destroy the original transmission and its attachments and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Alcatel-Lucent and/or its affiliated entities.

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:47:07 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Henry Lum
> Sent: 27 October 2010 23:29
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [siprec] Comments on draft-ietf-siprec-req-04
> 
[JRE] I wonder whether we want to step back and, instead of talking about integrity, write requirements in terms of the ability to ensure that recorded data and metadata are delivered to the SRS without modification by a man-in-the-middle. This does, of course, imply integrity protection.

> sufficient to handle this situation.
[JRE] I agree.

John (as individual)

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Henry
> 
> 					
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files attached 
> may contain confidential and proprietary information of 
> Alcatel-Lucent and/or its affiliated entities. Access by the 
> intended recipient only is authorized. Any liability arising 
> from any party acting, or refraining from acting, on any 
> information contained in this e-mail is hereby excluded. If 
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
> immediately, destroy the original transmission and its 
> attachments and do not disclose the contents to any other 
> person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the 
> information in any medium. Copyright in this e-mail and any 
> attachments belongs to Alcatel-Lucent and/or its affiliated entities.
> 					
> _______________________________________________
> siprec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec
>

---

From: Leon Portman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:53:07 +0200

I agree with both comments

Leon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Elwell, John
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:47 PM
To: Henry Lum; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [siprec] Comments on draft-ietf-siprec-req-04

[JRE] I agree.

John (as individual)

---

From: Deeanshu Gautam <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:33:24 +0800

All,

I'll be fine to delete 72 if we are in agreement for not mandating this for 
SRC i.e SRC may choose whether to notify or not.

Regards
Deepanshu

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dave Smith" <[email-masked]>; "Henry Lum" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>; "Ken Rehor 
(krehor)" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Leon Portman" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:28 PM
Subject: RE: [siprec] Comments on draft-ietf-siprec-req-04

otify

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Smith
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 12:41 AM
To: Henry Lum; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [siprec] Comments on draft-ietf-siprec-req-04

I have provided inputs to Henry's responses below.

Also, I have the following input to SIPREC-REQ-04.

- Recommend to update the Definition for Pause Resume

Here is what is written in the Draft-04:  Pause and Resume during a
Communication Session:
Pause: The action of temporarily discontinuing the recording of
media during a CS.
Resume: The action of recommencing the recording of media for a
CS following a pause.

I recommend to rewrite as follows:  Pause and Resume an RS:
Pause:  The action of temporarily discontinuing the transmission
or collection of RS media
Resume:  The action of recommencing the transmission or
collection of RS media

Rational:  Since we already have good definitions of CS and RS, and
those definitions explain the relationship between CS and RS, we should
be able to make the definition for Pause/Resume simple, refer it to RS
only, and leverage the definitions already provided for CS and RS.
Also, this keeps the definition of Pause/Resume focused on the context
of the RS,  not the CS or Playback.  Also, I believe that the purpose of
a Pause of a recording is to temporarily discontinue the collection of
CS media, typically for security reasons, and could be implemented by
either temporarily discontinuing the SRC media transmissions or by
temporarily discontinuing SRS media collection (depending on particular
user needs).  REQ-015 and REQ-016 support this notion.

Regards,
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Henry Lum
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [siprec] Comments on draft-ietf-siprec-req-04

[DS] I agree.

- REQ-040 seem to be missing a word in the sentence:
"REQ-040 The mechanism SHALL provide means for an SRS to "authenticate
SRC on RS initiation."
[DS] I agree, and is consistent with Deepanshu's updated email on this
subject.

- REQ-060/061: I am a little fuzzy about what integrity actually means
for media and metadata. Can someone explain?
[DS] We discussed this very early on and the input, as I remember, was
that it meant that the mechanism must ensure that the media/metadata
provided to the SRS by the SRC is an accurate representation of the
original CS media/metadata.  I recommend that we re-write REQ-060/061 in
these terms instead (or include both).

- REQ-072: I am uneasy about this requirement as it indicates that we
endorse the idea of an SRC tapping into a CS without notifying the
participants. We already have requirement REQ-024 to provide a means to
provide indications to the participants. Whether the SRC does this or
not is up to the actual deployment, and I believe REQ-024 alone is
sufficient to handle this situation.
[DS] I agree.  I recommend to remove REQ-072.  Also, I am not so sure we
need REQ-073 and recommend to remove it (I think REQ-032 is all that is
needed).

Regards,
Henry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files attached may contain
confidential and proprietary information of Alcatel-Lucent and/or its
affiliated entities. Access by the intended recipient only is
authorized. Any liability arising from any party acting, or refraining
from acting, on any information contained in this e-mail is hereby
excluded. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately, destroy the original transmission and its
attachments and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it
for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.
Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Alcatel-Lucent
and/or its affiliated entities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files attached may contain 
confidential and proprietary information of Alcatel-Lucent and/or its 
affiliated entities. Access by the intended recipient only is authorized. 
Any liability arising from any party acting, or refraining from acting, on 
any information contained in this e-mail is hereby excluded. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, destroy the 
original transmission and its attachments and do not disclose the contents 
to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the 
information in any medium. Copyright in this e-mail and any attachments 
belongs to Alcatel-Lucent and/or its affiliated entities.

---

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:20:02 +0200

> From: Dave Smith [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 28 October 2010 15:28
> To: Dave Smith; Henry Lum; [email-masked]
> Cc: Elwell, John; Ken Rehor (krehor); [email-masked]; 
> Leon Portman
[JRE] According to my interpretation the distinction between REQ-015 and REQ-016 is based on whether the SRC initiates the pause (because it no longer wants to make media available for recording) or the SRS initiates the pause (because it is not in a position to accept media for recording). In both cases I imagined the SRC would stop sending media. If the requirements are open to different interpretations, perhaps they need clarifying.

John

> ----------
> person, use it