Re: [AVT] Re: TLS-SRTP internet draft as a WG item in AVT

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

There were no objections, therefore this draft is accepted as an AVT  
work item.
Colin



On 27 Jun 2007, at 10:59, Colin Perkins wrote:
> David, All,
>
> That's fine. We therefore propose to accept this draft as an AVT  
> work item, with the milestone listed. If there are any objections  
> to this plan, please state them by 29th June 2007.
>
> Colin
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Jun 2007, at 22:05, David McGrew wrote:
>> Hi Colin,
>>
>> how does this milestone sound?  "December 2007 Submit TLS-SRTP for  
>> Proposed Standard"   Perhaps I'm aggressive in expecting us to  
>> have the draft ready before the Vancouver meeting; we could push  
>> it back to March 2008.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:00 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> What milestone(s) do you see this work adding to the AVT charter,  
>>> if accepted?
>>>
>>> Colin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jun 2007, at 21:54, David McGrew wrote:
>>>> Hi Colin, Roni, and Tom,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to ask that draft-mcgrew-tls-srtp be taken up as a  
>>>> working group action item in AVT, as part the plan for carrying  
>>>> forward the RTPSEC work (as per Cullen's email of May 11 to the  
>>>> rtpsec list).   I would like to continue on as an author of this  
>>>> work, and Eric as agreed to do the same.  There are a small  
>>>> number of minor open issues which I expect can be wrapped up  
>>>> quickly:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  The draft needs to be clarified so that, in the Symmetric  
>>>> RTP case, only one handshake is needed.
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Section 3.6.2.1 needs to be resolved to either decide on a  
>>>> "symmetry breaking" rule or not.  It may be desirable to have  
>>>> such a rule to handle cases in which the signaling system can't  
>>>> tell a device which should act as client and which should act as  
>>>> server.   This would allow opportunistic probing, i.e. a TLS- 
>>>> SRTP implementation could attempt to find out whether another  
>>>> RTP implementation supports TLS-SRTP, absent any help from  
>>>> signaling.
>>>>
>>>> 3.  The "single DTLS session per SRTP session" issue needs to be  
>>>> decided, and Appendix A should then be removed from the draft.
>>>>
>>>> 4.  It should be decided to use, or not to use the "TLS  
>>>> Extractor", and Section 3.3 should be rewritten accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> 5.  The duplicate list of srtp profiles needs to be eliminated.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> p.s. - here's the AVT-specific part of Cullen note, so that you  
>>>> don't need to dig it out of your mailbox: "AVT - Describe how  
>>>> DTLS is used to key SRTP and how SRTP is used in combination  
>>>> with DTLS. This includes the issues of multiplexing DTLS and  
>>>> SRTP on one port. draft-mcgrew-tls-srtp will be the starting  
>>>> draft for this."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Colin Perkins
>>> http://csperkins.org/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
>
>
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt



-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/



_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt