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

Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 03:01 UTC

Return-Path: <alan.b.johnston@gmail.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 6DE8412D524; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 6hpz5Lm7OF6w; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B80D112D50C; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id y126so49897554qke.1; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=FCiSbClJRkzPw6NtmvKri17jlBazlX7MJaUIUcbwuY8=; b=mLXZMv+alNlJ4gxJA3HzEoQnJsEoh1uE/sgoOviTlhJzpIgsm5ZpIUMnG8TwpNizvT 9L+j5kEbWnwgTDHzRQbOPKkSIIV86Mu92gJ03tfte5u9D7i1i/ZnEJs9dAAnyR/39/qg +9kl5jfBYJQ22fHSypg0zEXp4tLRjZtjvJJk/qYbU+qGLbqTSQGSg+wxBitIWr8DRYBZ +fbERs5v5EGTlFDd77qK+KZG1uv3KyleGJWN8WtZYI5Ba46mHJNVtGtD3wFElXSoHLs+ AAfUN8DKzeXU6/1J/b65gXiktnFous3WJySmAT+N62QrrLwK/eZHN268tzln9O5ERVCY BSwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=FCiSbClJRkzPw6NtmvKri17jlBazlX7MJaUIUcbwuY8=; b=Bh0zcg8CQ+HwQtZlDHL5aG6V6jC23dmNy10VZlGvgle+V/TAS2vONs05wtSwLpXqOZ 6fjMwWCmwNaUxkoBZfRW7XssLhiyYBRh6hB3h/sSr0rld2dK81LvyRfCoUFxO+sIV/cb m2LfPjZ1X2L+fYmzYdMjExMxVZlwkwKfaJvRpsz96OON2cV8E2e48fsu1/6jLSB+Y2eA WzTUftSoQAqE6a13m/U/4CvpUvIV0zbOwdzcqoISPGsV4LqJWZClthRkB6hllSoRqkYr xLy4/YVnpiqBYjJpWdy6Xim744HtMSN0pTOSdjfcY5PpblXJtQTGIwuX+LiFhCaGXcpn FM3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKMEsr3nvlTVpMMf25kAqY3KHO5Fut4XSL4wtAt7XrtHJiDLgwbXs7iDnKhs63HWJLX7pPK5DNW7RxqTw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.200.47.6 with SMTP id j6mr6956582qta.85.1464231687737; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.185.70 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 20:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <80563BED-ADDE-4C2B-8B4E-DF1C8F3E3FA5@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>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:01:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKhHsXGDneqTTaZ0tkw3WxsCPStLuMWGBSDHnarc+4YA-t-tyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
To: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136f16c9de10d0533b60178
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/VbKWJTmMAObyDw6e0tIk5kJCOsE>
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 03:01:32 -0000

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
> >
>
>