Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-11.txt

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 26 November 2012 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 8332F21F85AB for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:22:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 9YfoxrwyXj7i for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 701AF21F8554 for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2012 17:22:49 -0000
Received: from a88-115-216-191.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.100.114]) [88.115.216.191] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 26 Nov 2012 18:22:49 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/G+5URHDfG5/KFkmv3syRuFiyi29jT+zRWZYCKAT aZZWanbueqgre1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <747787E65E3FBD4E93F0EB2F14DB556B0F547799@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:22:46 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E2AB6AFE-5DC7-457B-B0E3-AAF8AABC5EA2@gmx.net>
References: <747787E65E3FBD4E93F0EB2F14DB556B0F547799@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: "David McGrew (mcgrew)" <mcgrew@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-11.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: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:23:00 -0000

On Nov 26, 2012, at 6:18 PM, David McGrew (mcgrew) wrote:

> Eleven keying method sounds right; that would be DTLS-SRTP, SDP Security
> Descriptions, EKT, plus the eight different MIKEY methods.  Too many
> options, but not all of them are standards track.

Given that everyone was (and still is) allowed to publish their favorite VoIP media key exchange protocol it is a surprise that we only have so few.
Some of the mechanisms have been published in the IETF only because of a too restrictive registration policy established by the MIKEY RFC.

On the other hand, if you look at the deployment then the situation is a bit different..