|
Colin said: > I'm confused about your objection, since this draft states that we need to do exactly as you propose. [BA] I agree with Colin. The document is consistent with the Danvers Doctrine and more recently expressed sentiments. From Section 6: Given the variability of the classes of application that use RTP, and the variety of the currently available security mechanisms described in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options], no one set of MTI security options can realistically be specified that apply to all classes of RTP applications. Documents that define an interoperable class of applications using RTP are subject to [RFC3365], and so need to specify MTI security mechanisms. This is because such specifications do fully specify interoperable applications that use RTP. Examples of such documents under development in the IETF at the time of this writing are the RTCWEB Security Architecture [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] and the Real Time Streaming Protocol 2.0 (RTSP) [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis]. It is also expected that a similar document will be produced for voice-over-IP applications using SIP and RTP. |