[AVTCORE] RFC 7202 on Securing the RTP Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Tue, 15 April 2014 04:59 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253291A06A3; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 PqqH_9vwHKT3; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052DF1A074E; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 4A8881801CF; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:ams_util_lib.php
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20140415045854.4A8881801CF@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/GTW4gVxhBpiteeXlBqMnkxCLnzc
Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, avt@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [AVTCORE] RFC 7202 on Securing the RTP Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Security Solution
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:59:27 -0000

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 7202

        Title:      Securing the RTP Framework: Why 
                    RTP Does Not Mandate a Single 
                    Media Security Solution 
        Author:     C. Perkins, M. Westerlund
        Status:     Informational
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       April 2014
        Mailbox:    csp@csperkins.org, 
                    magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
        Pages:      10
        Characters: 23428
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-16.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7202.txt

This memo discusses the problem of securing real-time multimedia
sessions.  It also explains why the Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP) and the associated RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) do not mandate a
single media security mechanism.  This is relevant for designers and
reviewers of future RTP extensions to ensure that appropriate
security mechanisms are mandated and that any such mechanisms are
specified in a manner that conforms with the RTP architecture.

This document is a product of the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.


INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC