IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Perc] Last Call: <draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08.txt> (A Solution Framework for Private Media in Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing) to Proposed Standard

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D84130E57; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:58:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 M1mk-GX8CVYI; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (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 E8BAB130E6B; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:58:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id v26so4295759wmh.3; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:58:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=kTtmRgiGhHqq/L64DouXDpRHstO6pDwfUSHQnBr/ODw=; b=YHypJcMHcj8gUDqMjO1XpvlytEJEc1ZRxV0/8pbyH/J3dbpnAndf4VWVQvV5i/8DTl ilV+C7fa3+x29emMlyM36WMYsopeOioWtNDxiK3SawrSMf/K47lv00mM5Q/0Lvm/G5EK Z5HZjUjSgdpWtkm8gnq1NR4RWxKA9AcI1/JzspF1Eu9NJFKEns90BAnihWNL57qbIdrw pkeMSf4onpPgwX3mdyEldxSoY5dEFt7NLCMOznwxD+fJrFXuUUikZZYvPnfwfAFohY9k +6hy1pe6YTPtOobd4YzDyqVj9a0SFQEdgMoFbQYZXd3lYjHSs1OwEoFKxOlwIzIX+DMo Ar1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=kTtmRgiGhHqq/L64DouXDpRHstO6pDwfUSHQnBr/ODw=; b=K7tlEk1E7tNvj/qvRQ7lD/yUBPYZr8Nt7gJfrWctmKHzCV68kTAejsx7lVzS0b0VKW T66UX9cR0L1UByFPIzkMmsbTY8p8BurR4tau4ZrKW6xQsBpJeGwLNM5pwHnJy2ikeNfr NwpY36+0NSwNwEBUyxEkDfZ3jIEfgmL5Jcgpio/La7hjCSp+am0NSpE6FbxmeBBVh3DW WHfi0y4VvBl+06DYWy7Cw63qXQY/lfI1gsKbjpVzWPj6Xzuv+FttTRPsOY3t03gBEsF7 tjweCwh8EUBmAaqRKCtH/vap8b200N6t7KjvBnYMLD4+INMXe9MGMLD+HCnp6f6bSNu7 Wo+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuav4dhFDybYZweWTZ7yvYt53lPCuqmo3fp5EQNQhqLD70ScUdPJ JWFwIx3uBQr25TVtEsCiN4M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Iba3rwOq4mW2wXt/8pXXdVezkgTbpC8xDYxGwqd8N9iOdxYcTjUHxsny6V02G+k1PqPvwchCw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:ac42:: with SMTP id v63mr401152wme.119.1550102304278; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.11] (79.108.125.160.dyn.user.ono.com. [79.108.125.160]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id y22sm1856039wrd.45.2019.02.13.15.58.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [Perc] Last Call: <draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08.txt> (A Solution Framework for Private Media in Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing) to Proposed Standard
To: Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Emad Omara <emadomara@google.com>, perc@ietf.org, "hta@google.com" <hta@google.com>, Alexandre GOUAILLARD <alex.gouaillard@cosmosoftware.io>, Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
References: <154889546931.10496.2408974719921724953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOW+2dtxnSYOPPWxodN633O=dPOQaUnu7eYvgUYkPYRt6iWbaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaaK_VUXvy2=1TBGfBWWYxiBdXBzuR=Y-rnAdJyg=M8OfQQ@mail.gmail.com> <5486C91C-48EA-4AA1-85EE-05A0B01C1E70@meetecho.com> <C6FEAEB9-CF8E-48AF-B03F-1406FF9CB303@cosmosoftware.io> <CAOW+2ducgj400pk3xPFAkRYxnYvqwhMsE9rOO0u9PgLpniaaRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaaLYFeNkZ4Pfdh4pa2btNW6EGZBnAOvXzVZ9egU8V-gBNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvom822NgjF7OAa2A8YDeqZ+mbCqA=fUcq-Y49oFyGpsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaa+EzwgMXB_t7ZVTBgZH2y4=neUm1RymUNKnMV-6zyGPaQ@mail.gmail.com> <a74a8239-27dc-5704-096b-05cc5e02bd18@gmail.com> <543375ED-9A4F-452C-AE51-9499DAD5CEE0@gmail.com> <80a1f634-0888-c5e2-f6be-729d4cca3b28@cosmosoftware.io> <06d91175-b071-49fe-01cc-4a1323ad85f7@gmail.com> <91A16283-A392-4217-97E1-B04A5C8AD245@mozilla.com> <CAPvvaaJDo6vYj00NMVQEKHnrMHr1EoQydTsZ+7WtdEgyoy_GAQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F1100AC-B9D2-4650-8663-A6D380721688@mozilla.com>
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8136dee9-74c9-8ac1-3cb8-f18f08b1ff3b@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 01:03:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1F1100AC-B9D2-4650-8663-A6D380721688@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dQlhyNFTyAg5U5aUAyecIPT_wJE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 23:58:29 -0000

On 13/02/2019 23:48, Nils Ohlmeier wrote:
> While implementation convenience was part of the discussion it was 
> raised a few times that the people in favor of allowing SSRC 
> mutability never provided any written description of why mutating the 
> SSRC is not a problem as pointed out by the design team.
>
Moreover, in the (maybe not so) near future of ssrc-less signaling (at 
least in webrtc), where the MID extensions are HBH, how would ssrc 
rewriting even be a potential risk?

Has this group analyzed the implications and new attacks that this may 
cause?

Best regards

Sergio

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email