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 > > > >
- [AVTCORE] Fwd: [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-s… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
- [AVTCORE] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attribu… Ben Campbell
- Re: [AVTCORE] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-att… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [AVTCORE] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-att… Ben Campbell
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Alan Johnston
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Ben Campbell
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Alan Johnston
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Ben Campbell
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Alan Johnston
- Re: [AVTCORE] [MMUSIC] zrtp: draft-ietf-mmusic-sd… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)