IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext-00.txt

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 14 July 2011 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 5B11821F8B2C for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.947, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6IdTC2KgwbnR for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F8D21F8B29 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LOB00BCRDMIRQ@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:15:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LOB00FQDDJMOV@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for avt@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:15:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ACF26642; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:15:53 +0800 (CST)
Received: from SZXEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.137) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:15:43 +0800
Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.76) by szxeml410-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.137) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:15:50 +0800
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:15:50 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.76]
To: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>, avt@ietf.org
Message-id: <9E56A50D84704E9EB96FE1EC68445967@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <20110607084412.16038.596.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <005801cc406d$9c903090$d5b091b0$%roni@huawei.com>
Cc: 'Jonathan Lennox' <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] comments on draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext-00.txt
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:16:35 -0000

One more comment to draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext:
This draft allocates two new lable value from 0x06 to 0x07 for k_he and k_hs, I am wondering
Is there a need in the IANA section to regiserter these values and if yes, who are responsible for regisering
 thes new values? Does it rely on key management protocol or SRTP protcol or this draft?

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roni Even" <Even.roni@huawei.com>
To: <avt@ietf.org>
Cc: "'Jonathan Lennox'" <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:27 PM
Subject: [AVTCORE] comments ondraft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext-00.txt


> Hi,
> I read the draft, some comments:
> 
> 1. I think it needs an offer answer section. We need to specify the behavior
> when an offer to encrypt the header is sent and the answerer do not support
> the encryption header extension. Can alternatives, one with encryption and
> one without be offered. 
> 
> 2. Extmap can be a session level attribute. What about encryption, is it
> only a media level.
> 
> In general are the offer answer rules from RFC 5285 applicable here and how.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Roni Even
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email