Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-
review-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-secdir-lc-perlman-2010-04-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2010-04-28
Requested 2010-04-15
Authors Randell Jesup, Tom Kristensen, Yekui Wang, Roni Even
Draft last updated 2010-04-27
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Radia Perlman
Assignment Reviewer Radia Perlman
State Completed
Review review-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-secdir-lc-perlman-2010-04-27
Review completed: 2010-04-27

Review
review-ietf-avt-rtp-rfc3984bis-secdir-lc-perlman-2010-04-27

This document just describes how to carry video in RTP. Apparently
there is a standard in ISO and a standard in ITU (ITU-T Recommendation
H.264 and ISO/IEC International Standard 14496 Part 10) that both
specify nearly identical compression algorithms for video encoding.
Given that this document is not describing the video encoding itself,
but just how to carry it in RTP, it is a little surprising that this
document is 104 pages, but it describes what to do about reordering,
lost packets, fragmentation across packet boundaries, and so forth.

There really are not any security considerations, and certainly not
anything they missed in their security considerations section. One
thing that might be nice to mention is that it is dangerous to do
encryption without integrity protection because a single bit error in
the ciphertext can cause a lot of errors in the plaintext.

Radia