Thanks! I requested IETF Last Call of version 08.

Ben.

> On Jul 26, 2017, at 12:09 AM, Jean-Marc Valin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Just submitted version -08 addressing your last set of comments. See
> below for details.
> 
> On 26/07/17 12:41 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> I suggest adding a sentence to the effect of the following after “…
>> associated text description.”:
>> 
>> "That RFC includes the reference decoder implementation as Appendix
>> A."
> 
> Done.
> 
>>> This document fixes two security issues reported on Opus and that 
>>> affect the reference implementation in RFC 6716 [RFC6716]: CVE- 
>>> 2013-0899 and CVE-2017-0381.  CVE-2013-0899 is fixed by Section 4
>>> and could theoretically cause information leak, but the leaked 
>>> information would at the very least go through the decoder process 
>>> before being accessible to the attacker.  Also, the bug can only
>>> be triggered by Opus packets at least 24 MB in size.  CVE-2017-0381
>>> is fixed by Section 7 as far as the authors are aware, could not
>>> be
>> 
>> Is there a missing word? It’s not clear if you mean to say that as
>> far as the authors are aware it is fixed, or as far as the authors
>> are aware it could not be exploited.
> 
> There was indeed a missing "and":
> 
>  CVE-2017-0381 is fixed by Section 7 and, as far as the authors
>  are aware, could not be exploited in any way...
> 
>> Can you add some context about the CVEs, such as where they are
>> reported and where they can be found?
> 
> Added links to the CVEs
> 
>> So, as I looked at the XML diff, I realize the emphasis is added
>> using XML tags rather than by hand entering the underscores. So I may
>> have been incorrect to say they have no meaning in the context of an
>> RFC :-)   I think the text is still better without them, but do not
>> have strong feelings if you prefer to keep them.
> 
> I agree that the underscores weren't adding much, so I'm leaving them out.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>       Jean-Marc

_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

Reply via email to