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

If we're taking votes, I would also prefer DTLS-SRTP.  For all we know, we
might want or need TLS (over TCP) with SRTP later (streaming video,
perhaps?).

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:14 PM
> To: David McGrew ((mcgrew))
> Cc: Colin Perkins; Roni Even; tom.taylor@rogers.com; AVT; Dan 
> Wing (dwing); Eric Rescorla
> Subject: 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