Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes vs draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes

"Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 03:59 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DDA12D0B6; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elc_xM8lYmbU; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0087B12D5D9; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8710; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464235171; x=1465444771; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=jdPn8l4PeQSJW2D17BC0JDQ9CIMonzSXnfWwrrdxYKw=; b=Ln1DU+riy/l8JmBSPkLSSjs/8LN0WkLmUUbuVyTqeBuXeVoQo00J8nex Nl6HQvNbXsUV06jIoMbV7Loip1voZOb0fNHxh4+DxDbXbnJrKLSPm3KO8 T7M82VyVNj0TO9de+o3eKvrTYfxpmDSf5ql/dyCumGGwUv4rhOloebvDS M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ABAgBmc0ZX/5xdJa1cgzlWfa4Mi28BD?= =?us-ascii?q?YF4FwuFJUoCgTU4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RDAQEBAwEBAQEkRwsFCwIBCBgdBgshBgs?= =?us-ascii?q?lAgQOBRSIAQMPCA6+UA2ELQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFhieBdgiCT?= =?us-ascii?q?oJDgU4RARyDLIIuBYgEkAAzAYwmgXmBaYd7hTiGM4Exh2cBHgEBQoIFARwWgTV?= =?us-ascii?q?uAYhfgTUBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,366,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="108311096"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 May 2016 03:59:29 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4Q3xTb0002231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 May 2016 03:59:29 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 25 May 2016 22:59:29 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) by XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 25 May 2016 22:59:29 -0500
From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] [AVTCORE] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes vs draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes
Thread-Index: AQHRthL8VuJ5x/fyEE6AYexF7eizHZ/KQAMAgAAFTwCAACwxAIAABhuAgABl14CAAAEuAIAAASMAgAALUoD//67CtA==
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 03:59:29 +0000
Message-ID: <D760EEE0-2241-428A-89B7-1D8F985E2BBE@cisco.com>
References: <CD90C355-FAFD-44F9-8CB0-E40045E31046@nostrum.com> <5745E2F4.8040206@petit-huguenin.org> <9759123A-B014-41AC-95B8-720C50BC9E57@nostrum.com> <CAKhHsXG96C141ujTNtKP8D1QEHB2seYnCR67mRYzSqac5fijJg@mail.gmail.com> <80563BED-ADDE-4C2B-8B4E-DF1C8F3E3FA5@cisco.com> <CAKhHsXGDneqTTaZ0tkw3WxsCPStLuMWGBSDHnarc+4YA-t-tyA@mail.gmail.com> <CCF13C88-3C10-4E73-88A5-B70BA1C15A20@cisco.com> <CAMRcRGTRkM8wksX8jHBwa1+kT_JSN9x=HtpV81+LcwdvsdcWNg@mail.gmail.com>, <19E42A64-2DFD-4DAD-AD8D-C971EBD88C19@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <19E42A64-2DFD-4DAD-AD8D-C971EBD88C19@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/3WY8SUwk_6_aCXezx1XGfGUNByE>
Cc: mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>, "avt@ietf.org WG" <avt@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes.all@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes vs draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 03:59:35 -0000


> On May 25, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Since I'm the one who originally complained about TRANSPORT I should probably respond :-)
> 
> I agree TRANSPORT makes sense if people agree to the changes in mux-fixes.

Well, as mentioned in my earlier email, changes to both mux-fixes and 6189 are needed. 

Gonzalo


> Ben.
> 
>> On 25 May 2016, at 22:09, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Ben, Alan , Gonzalo & Marc for driving these discussions.
>> 
>> 
>> Just getting back to the original question that Ben had on the mux-cateory
>> for ZRTP - Do we all agree that with the changes to rfc5764-mux-fixes the
>> category TRANSPORT makes sense ? Since that helps clarify demuxing ...
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Suhas
>> 
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) <
>> gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> OK, cool  Thanks, Alan.  Once we get consensus from the WG(s) that this is
>>> the best way forward we will make this change to
>>> draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Gonzalo
>>> 
>>>>> On May 25, 2016, at 8:01 PM, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Gonzalo,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the clarification - I had it backwards in my head.   Existing
>>> ZRTP implementations will be compliant to the proposal, and we can
>>> constrain those bits to 0 in the 6189bis draft to lock it down.
>>>> 
>>>> So I am OK with this proposal.
>>>> 
>>>> - Alan -
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) <
>>>> gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Alan -
>>>> 
>>>> One of the reasons we made the suggestion was because (in our
>>> estimation) it did not have a major impact to the ZRTP packet format.
>>> Currently the packet format is:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    0                   1                   2                   3
>>>>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>   |0 0 0 1|Not Used (set to zero) |         Sequence Number       |
>>>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>   |                 Magic Cookie 'ZRTP' (0x5a525450)              |
>>>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>   |                        Source Identifier                      |
>>>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>   |                                                               |
>>>>   |           ZRTP Message (length depends on Message Type)       |
>>>>   |                            . . .                              |
>>>>   |                                                               |
>>>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>   |                          CRC (1 word)                         |
>>>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Our proposal was to set bits 4 and 5 to zero, which is currently what
>>> the protocol calls for and should implicitly make all existing
>>> implementations compliant.  All we are proposing is is to take bits 4 and 5
>>> out of the “Not Used” range and leave them fixed to the value that current
>>> implementations use.  Does this make sense?
>>>> 
>>>> In any case, I’d like to try and understand what impact this has to the
>>> current rfc5764-mux-fix text.  Is it as simple as explicitly reserving
>>> values 16 - 19 for ZRTP? Or did you have something else in mind?  If you
>>> can make specific text suggestions that will simplify things.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Gonzalo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 25, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Changing the packet format for ZRTP is a pretty major change to the
>>> protocol...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the only case where this is an issue would be if both ZRTP and
>>> DTLS-SRTP are offered opportunistically (OSRTP), and either ZRTP or
>>> DTLS-SRTP arrives before the answer is received.    During this window of
>>> time, a slightly more complicated algorithm could be used to distinguish
>>> ZRTP from DTLS-SRTP, such as checking the 32-bit magic cookie that is
>>> present in every ZRTP message. Otherwise, only one of these protocols will
>>> be used at a time, so it is not the same as distinguishing either from STUN
>>> and RTP, which happens throughout a session.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We could put this guidance in a RFC6189bis draft, and the other
>>> documents could just defer to that guidance if they support ZRTP in
>>> addition to DTLS-SRTP opportunistically.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Alan -
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's along the lines that I expected, if the working group chooses
>>> this path. What do others think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ben.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 25 May 2016, at 12:37, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> As you mention, there are several ways to handle this issue. We leave
>>> it to the community to decide whether to include zrtp in bundle or not. If
>>> we were to update the 5764-mux-fix draft, we felt that the cleanest way to
>>> handle it is in two steps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One thing to note is that there is no clash/overlap with STUN, so
>>> using magic cookie to distinguish from STUN is a moot point. The overlap
>>> with the DTLS range is what we need to avoid. The right thing to do seems
>>> to be to work on a rfc6189bis draft that would set bit 4 and 5 of the first
>>> byte of the zrtp message to 0. This way zrtp cannot clash with DTLS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the rfc5764-mux-fixes draft, we just change the algorithm to:
>>>>> 
>>>>>           +----------------+
>>>>>           |        [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
>>>>>           |                |
>>>>>           |      [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP
>>>>>           |                |
>>>>> packet --> |      [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
>>>>>           |                |
>>>>>           |      [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel
>>>>>           |                |
>>>>>           |    [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP
>>>>>           +----------------+
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does this seem like a reasonable approach?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 05/24/2016 04:21 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> There appears to be a discrepancy between
>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes and
>>> draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes concerning whether zrtp can be used
>>> with bundle.
>>>>> 
>>>>> mux-attributes puts the zrtp-hash attribute [RFC6189] in the
>>> "transport" category, meaning, among other things, that it can be used in a
>>> bundle group. However, as the demux rules are currently defined
>>> 5764-mux-fixes, zrtp messages cannot actually be demuxed. (If I read things
>>> correctly, the first byte of a zrtp message will be 16, which is not in any
>>> of the "known ranges" described in 5765 or 5764-mux-fixes, and therefore
>>> the message MUST be dropped.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That seems to leave the choice of adding zrtp messages to the demux
>>> rules in 5764-mux-fixes, or removing the implication that zrtp can be
>>> bundled from mux-attributes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Adding rules for demuxing zrtp to 5765-mux-fixes would probably not be
>>> hard, but would be non-trivial. RFC 6189 calls for using the magic cookie
>>> to distinguish zrtp messages from stun messages.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do people have opinions how to move forward with this? Am I
>>> interpreting the conflict correctly?Keep in mind that ZRTP is not a
>>> standards-track spec. But at the same time, I'm not sure we want to exclude
>>> it from the bundle mechanism.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ben.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>>>>> avt@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>