Re: [AVTCORE] [Cryptex] PR for recommending Cryptex over RFC 6904

The wording is a bit confusing, because both the Offerer and Answerer can
be "sender and receiver" in this context.

You are trying to give guidance on what a peer should send where the other
peer has advertised both the ability to receive cryptex and the ability to
receive header extensions encrypted as per RFC 6904.

The guidance is to send cryptex unless there is a compelling reason to send
RFC 6904 (e.g. need for some header extensions in the clear).  However,
this only makes sense if the header extensions to be sent in the clear can
actually be sent (e.g. if they are sendonly or sendrecv on the sending peer
and recvonly or sendrecv on the receiving peer).

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 2:44 AM Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As discussed during the last AVTCORE meeting, I have prepared a PR for
> adding the recommendation of using Cryptex over RFC6904 adding an exception
> in the case of some of the header extensions should be sent in clear for
> RTP middleboxes processing:
>
> If both Cryptex and the Encryption of Header Extensions mechanism defined
> in {{RFC6904}} are supported by both the sender and receiver, it is
> RECOMMENDED to use Cryptex over {{RFC6904}} so all the header extensions
> and CSRCS are encrypted, except when some of the header extensions should
> be sent in clear so they are processable by RTP middleboxes, in which case,
> it SHOULD use {{RFC6904}} instead.
>
> https://github.com/juberti/cryptex/pull/111
>
> Would be great if someone could review the wording as I think it could be
> simplified.
>
> I will be on vacation from next week, so I will merge the PR and submit a
> final draft by the end of this week if I don't receive any further feedback
> on the draft.
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>