[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5763 (2723)

Discussion:

RFC Errata System

2011-02-16 07:28:20 UTC

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5763,
"Framework for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5763&eid=2723

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: sent to answer's sip proxy <***@zte.com.cn>

Section: clause 5

Original Text
-------------
The endpoint SHOULD send the SIP message containing the offer to the offerer's SIP proxy over an integrity protected channel. The proxy SHOULD add an Identity header field according to the procedures outlined in [RFC4474]. The SIP message containing the offer SHOULD be sent to the offerer's SIP proxy over an integrity protected channel.

Corrected Text
--------------
The endpoint SHOULD send the SIP message containing the offer to the offerer's SIP proxy over an integrity protected channel. The proxy SHOULD add an Identity header field according to the procedures outlined in [RFC4474]. The SIP message containing the offer SHOULD be sent to the answer's SIP proxy over an integrity protected channel.

Notes
-----
the original text seems to be repetitive.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC5763 (draft-ietf-sip-dtls-srtp-framework-07)
--------------------------------------
Title : Framework for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
Publication Date : May 2010
Author(s) : J. Fischl, H. Tschofenig, E. Rescorla
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Session Initiation Protocol
Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
Use sip-***@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
Use ***@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip.
Use ***@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.

Elwell, John

2011-02-16 08:52:14 UTC

Permalink

Whilst I agree this looks like repetition, what was the original intent? If the last sentence were written in the active voice, what would have been the subject? The offerer or the offerer's SIP proxy?
- If the intent had been that the subject be the offerer, it is indeed repetition and should be deleted.
- If the intent had been that the subject be the offerer's SIP proxy, then the proposed correction might make sense. However, I don't think this would have been the intent. The addition of an Identity header field by the offerer's SIP proxy provides the required integrity protection for the rest of the journey to the UAS. Any additional protection (by sending the entire message in a protected channel) is not a necessary part of this mechanism.

John

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of RFC Errata System
Sent: 16 February 2011 07:28
Subject: [Sip] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5763 (2723)
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5763,
"Framework for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport
Protocol (SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS)".
--------------------------------------
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5763&eid=2723
--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Section: clause 5
Original Text
-------------
The endpoint SHOULD send the SIP message containing the offer
to the offerer's SIP proxy over an integrity protected
channel. The proxy SHOULD add an Identity header field
according to the procedures outlined in [RFC4474]. The SIP
message containing the offer SHOULD be sent to the offerer's
SIP proxy over an integrity protected channel.
Corrected Text
--------------
The endpoint SHOULD send the SIP message containing the offer
to the offerer's SIP proxy over an integrity protected
channel. The proxy SHOULD add an Identity header field
according to the procedures outlined in [RFC4474]. The SIP
message containing the offer SHOULD be sent to the answer's
SIP proxy over an integrity protected channel.
Notes
-----
the original text seems to be repetitive.
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
RFC5763 (draft-ietf-sip-dtls-srtp-framework-07)
--------------------------------------
Title : Framework for Establishing a Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Security Context Using
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
Publication Date : May 2010
Author(s) : J. Fischl, H. Tschofenig, E. Rescorla
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : Session Initiation Protocol
Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing
old business.
develop a SIP implementation.
core SIP specifications.

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
Use sip-***@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
Use ***@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip.
Use ***@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.

Robert Sparks

2011-02-21 21:32:59 UTC

Permalink

I'm going to put this into hold for document update
(see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html) if you don't already know what that means.

Thanks!

RjS

Post by Elwell, John
Whilst I agree this looks like repetition, what was the original intent? If the last sentence were written in the active voice, what would have been the subject? The offerer or the offerer's SIP proxy?
- If the intent had been that the subject be the offerer, it is indeed repetition and should be deleted.
- If the intent had been that the subject be the offerer's SIP proxy, then the proposed correction might make sense. However, I don't think this would have been the intent. The addition of an Identity header field by the offerer's SIP proxy provides the required integrity protection for the rest of the journey to the UAS. Any additional protection (by sending the entire message in a protected channel) is not a necessary part of this mechanism.
John