On 9 December 2013 14:59, Colin Perkins <csp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If some part of the draft is unclear about this, and can possibly be interpreted to allow insecure use of RTP, please explain what, and we will fix it. Let me theorize a little: the draft name (draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory) might generate some false reactions. Thankfully, that's not going to appear in an RFC.