Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 06:14:17 -0700

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 is a completely harmless editorial update of another document (RFC
3551] to replace the paragraph

   Audio applications operating under this profile SHOULD, at a minimum,
   be able to send and/or receive payload types 0 (PCMU) and 5 (DVI4).
   This allows interoperability without format negotiation and ensures
   successful negotiation with a conference control protocol.

 with

   Audio applications operating under this profile SHOULD, at a minimum,
   be able to send and/or receive payload type 0 (PCMU).  This allows
   interoperability without format negotiation and ensures successful
   negotiation with a conference control protocol.  Some environments
   REQUIRE support for PCMU.

There are certainly no security implications (as correctly noted in this draft).

My only question is...shouldn't this be an actual updated document,
rather than a tiny document saying "replace this paragraph with this
other paragraph"?  Surely we wouldn't make this document an RFC rather
than simply replacing RFC 3551 with an updated RFC?

Radia