Re: [Gen-art] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Robert Sparks skrev den 2015-05-14 21:21:

> Major issues:
>
> I'm surprised that there is no mention of how SRTP fits into the
> vocabulary this
> document builds. Would it be a mistake for someone to think of SRTP as what
> this document calls a transformation? Are there any consequences of
> using SRTP
> on one or more of the streams being associated that impact how you would
> talk about
> the association? (There are certainly consequences about which elements
> can see
> into the various streams).
>

Yes, encryption is clearly a transformation. And there are cases where 
the order of the encryption and other transformations, like FEC, do 
matter. Thus, I agree that it is an significant oversight to not include 
security.

So SRTP is an Securing / Protection (as it is not only Encryption) 
transformation that operates on Source RTP Streams or Redundancy RTP 
Streams to create Secured Source RTP Streams or Secured Redundancy RTP 
Stream.

If one looks on something like ISMAcrypt that operates on a special form 
of packetized encoded streams, i.e. payload created, but not RTP 
headers, we get into further distinctions that we so far haven't needed 
to have.

I don't know how well we must ensure that something like ISMAcrypt is 
clearly defined, because then we do need to split the RTP packetization 
transformation into two parts.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------