Re: [MMUSIC] Transport tags

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer,

Definition for TCP/DTLS/BFCP needs to be added
in draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis.

This is BFCP over DTLS over TCP with RFC 4571 framing. UDP/DTLS/BFCP
together with TCP/DTLS/BFCP will over ICE based on the mechanisms defined
in draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp. Only UDP/DTLS/BFCP in combination with
TCP/DTLS/BFCP will support ICE. TCP/BFCP and TLS/BFCP will not support ICE
and will have two run with at least one end point on the public IP.

I hope it makes sense.

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Now sure I follow: Where TCP with DTLS for BFCP defined? Doesn’t TCP based
> BFCP run over TLS?
>
>
>
> That is also what is used in RFC 4583.
>
>
>
> As Roman has indicated, TCP/BFCP and TLS/BFCP won’t work on ICE. But, if
> you want to fix, don’t you then have to do more than just change the m-
> proto value? Don’t you have to define usage of the framing mechanism?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From:* Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 12 January 2017 17:52
> *To:* Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>; Paul Kyzivat <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Christer Holmberg <
> [e-mail]>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] Transport tags
>
>
>
> Works for me.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> *From: *Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 4:33 PM
> *To: *Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>, Paul Kyzivat <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Christer
> Holmberg <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [MMUSIC] Transport tags
>
>
>
> I guess BFCP will need TCP/DTLS/BFCP added to the list.
>
>
>
> Should we correct draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp draft to match and change
> UDP/DTLS/SCTP to UDP/TLS/SCTP?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Here is what we have for BFCP in https://tools.ietf.org/html/
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-16#section-13:
>
>
>
>                        +--------------+------------+
>
>                        | Value        | Reference  |
>
>                        +--------------+------------+
>
>                        | TCP/BFCP     | [RFC XXXX] |
>
>                        | TCP/TLS/BFCP | [RFC XXXX] |
>
>                        | UDP/BFCP     | [RFC XXXX] |
>
>                        | UDP/TLS/BFCP | [RFC XXXX] |
>
>                        +--------------+------------+
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> *From: *mmusic <[e-mail]> on behalf of Roman Shpount <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 1:01 PM
> *To: *Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[MMUSIC] Transport tags
>
>
>
> What should we use for the new protocols that we are defining?
>
>
>
> Should it be UDP/TLS/SCTP or UDP/DTLS/SCTP?
>
> Should it be UDP/TLS/BFCP or UDP/DTLS/BFCP?
>
>
>
> I would like to see some consistency here.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Den 2017-01-10 kl. 19:08, skrev Roman Shpount:
>
> P.S. In the quoted text someone mentioned "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF", should it
> be "UDP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF"?
>
>
> No, actually UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF is what is registered for DTLS-SRTP over
> UDP with RTP SAVPF profile. See [RFC5764]. The "UDP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF" is not
> registered.
>
> So the alternatives for the dependency of default candidate protocol type
> in your proposal would be:
>
> UDP: "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF"
> TCP: "TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF"
>
>
>
> 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]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>