IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Wed, 19 June 2019 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 065D412061D; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 cHwGWw14GprC; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (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 DA419120664; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x5JEstoQ003770; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:54:55 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu x5JEstoQ003770
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1560956095; bh=6dsqh7bGQEkUcJKfhZPi6HSwPLUTQwC/5/8AFLYFeAw=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZCjhgNAWjI5T+ox/v4uCs168Qn/+QFc86Ok7CYi5tRE3h6OtxbUrZFUWq/KNaKvcX 8bCoykxut6VESIbBdPFopG4M0KITM5eeTqc9BToj5Zapvaiq1RKUak5r0u+R1BlOvW SaJlgqbKia0VoSj85UmqjMARVY9aSBMiwMPXy7QE=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x5JEsstm014004; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:54:54 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:54:53 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "fandreas@cisco.com" <fandreas@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis@ietf.org>
CC: "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVFkzPf0v/Ozidc0iyJw+gdT2jvaaizgFggACjwAD//73RwA==
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:54:52 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B339C1F0@marathon>
References: <155915471104.5543.17843194441283384643.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B339B6C0@marathon> <9fc12825-f961-4cf3-1e2f-e328b90cebbb@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9fc12825-f961-4cf3-1e2f-e328b90cebbb@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/8phpT1ozg-oXeaN_uJuFDwu0owU>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:55:02 -0000

Hi Paul!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 10:46 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; fandreas@cisco.com; draft-ietf-mmusic-
> rfc4566bis@ietf.org
> Cc: mmusic-chairs@ietf.org; mmusic@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Roman,
> 
> On 6/19/19 5:11 AM, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for the revision to Section 7 to clarify the language within the
> section.  I still see a conflict between the guidance in Section 5.12 and 7.
> >
> > Section 5.12 says:
> >     The "k=" line (key-field) is obsolete and MUST NOT be used.  It is
> >     included in this document for legacy reasons.  One MUST NOT include a
> >     "k=" line in an SDP, and MUST discard it if it is received in an SDP.
> >
> > The new text in Section 7 says:
> >     SDP MUST NOT be used to convey keying material (e.g., using
> >     "a=crypto" [RFC4568]) unless it can be guaranteed that the channel
> >     over which the SDP is delivered is both private and authenticated.
> >
> > My read is that Section 5.12 says don't use k= and drop it if you see it; and
> Section 7 says don't use k= unless you can guarantee certain channel
> properties.  Consider the situation where one has the right channel
> properties (per Section 7), why would one use k= since Section 5.12 would
> dictate that this k= would get dropped?
> 
> The new section 7 uses a=crypto, which is a different mechanism from k=.
> So I don't see the conflict you are concerned with.

You're right.  The text was clear, but I conflated the two sections in re-reading my discuss text.

Thanks for the updated text.  I've cleared the discuss.

Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email