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

I have no problem with that milestone if that is what you decide on ...

One question about it - would calling it "DTLS-SRTP" be better than  
"TLS-SRTP"? I don't care but if we were going to change the name,  
this would be the right time to do that.

Cullen <with my AD hat on>

On Jun 26, 2007, at 2:05 PM, David McGrew ((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
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt