Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-
review-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-secdir-lc-atkins-2012-06-28-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2012-07-05 | |
| Requested | 2012-06-19 | |
| Draft last updated | 2012-06-28 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -?? by David Black
Genart Telechat review of -13 by David Black (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Derek Atkins |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Derek Atkins |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-secdir-lc-atkins-2012-06-28 | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2012-06-28 |
Review
review-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-secdir-lc-atkins-2012-06-28
Hi,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.
This document describes the requirements and implementation of a
group telephony feature commonly known as Bridged Line Appearance
(BLA) or Multiple Line Appearance (MLA), or Shared Call/Line
Appearance (SCA). When implemented using the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP), it is referred to as shared appearances of an Address
of Record (AOR) since SIP does not have the concept of lines. This
feature is commonly offered in IP Centrex services and IP-PBX
offerings and is likely to be implemented on SIP IP telephones and
SIP feature servers used in a business environment. This feature
allows several user agents (UAs) to share a common AOR, learn about
calls placed and received by other UAs in the group, and pick up or
join calls within the group. This document discusses use cases,
lists requirements and defines extensions to implement this feature.
The first sentence of the first paragraph of the Security Considerations
section is missing a reference. It says:
...
semantics provided by [RFC3261], Event Package for Dialog State as
define in , and Event Notification [I-D.ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis],
[RFC3903], ...
The "define in" should be "defined in", and needs a place where it is
defined.
The second paragraph says that dialog state information and dialog
identifiers MAY be encrypted, but doesn't talk about why one would
choose not to encrypt it.
Similarly, the last paragraph provides guidance on waiting for
confirmed seizures, but does not explain the details about why one must
do so.
Both of these might be obvious to writers, but to someone reading the
document they are not clear.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek at ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant