IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Unknown key shares in MMUSIC

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Fri, 17 March 2017 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=92496c4cb6=jonathan@vidyo.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49C71294CC for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 2FadUW3zwDXe for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 146F61294A5 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0073110.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v2HGJ0Qk018184; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:21:54 -0400
Received: from mail.vidyo.com ([162.209.16.214]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 294cv8cm72-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:21:54 -0400
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:21:53 -0500
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Unknown key shares in MMUSIC
Thread-Index: AQHSnzjjfyvKZCgF2E6ty0IZaQSz7aGZiosA
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:21:53 +0000
Message-ID: <44E3DEA7-165B-4B9F-822B-C1349A0D984D@vidyo.com>
References: <CABkgnnXJvyZxmhU94VZAHNjWeaVoeThVBQVTDv0x3rLBtRrn4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtmz8cP+hmJF6bq7VTX5SOduS5=U-e17iCiAs12KOa5MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVrx8qfD0AfOVb7AfS_7+8tGyohc8cSZ79dkBaReC8R_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVrx8qfD0AfOVb7AfS_7+8tGyohc8cSZ79dkBaReC8R_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [160.79.219.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1CA05117E4F2134496863B0A4737C12F@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-03-17_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1702020001 definitions=main-1703170136
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/8lAheLqzCQJMt5hgs6nlKLFM1OA>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Unknown key shares in MMUSIC
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:21:59 -0000

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If you think that this could be made more general and applied to
> protocols that don't use SDP, that's probably true.  But I can't think
> of a protocol that uses the same basic mechanisms for authentication.
> 
> I'd be open to a change if you could name an example.  I don't like
> building a general purpose mechanism with exactly one user; an example
> would help in choosing the right semantics.

The example that comes to mind is Jingle — XEP-0320 defines the use of DTLS-SRTP and Fingerprint with Jingle.

In general, anything that’s high-level semantically equivalent to SDP, but tries to be less awful in its syntax (low bar), will want to use this mechanism.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email