IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-mmusic-latching-04

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Sun, 23 March 2014 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4DF1A6F0B for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.642
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 JFEEWX1qoK18 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AE81A6F05 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.21.74.45] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60A2722E1FA; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 21:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAPvvaaKM7S0jRA1dQgCZLGfg4ryNRriMfvSM3V6sD+=3TX4Jzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:59:44 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <735A4CD3-A4CB-43F0-B823-516E38664620@iii.ca>
References: <CF489B5D.25EB0%alissa@cooperw.in> <CAPvvaaKM7S0jRA1dQgCZLGfg4ryNRriMfvSM3V6sD+=3TX4Jzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/9AocYpBDeDVK1895O8wEKFMQk40
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-latching@tools.ietf.org, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-mmusic-latching-04
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 01:39:46 -0000

On Mar 19, 2014, at 2:51 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:

> Also it is worth reminding that the above threats apply mostly to
> generic Internet deployments. Many people using latching today, do so
> in controlled environments, where that kind of hijacking could not
> occur.

Could you provide a bit more about where you see this being used? Most the latching I have seen is in exactly the places where network is not at all controlled. In a managed network you can vernally avoid the need for latching.

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status