Re: [MMUSIC] connection:new with DTLS

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sat, 28 March 2015 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 0087E1A8934 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:27:39 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 JiIM96rPHENU for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) (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 69AC21A8915 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obcjt1 with SMTP id jt1so93990326obc.2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=kNNGRJh+2s/p2I/iR68p3zxYb2fI4IMvd/wsx+fuDxc=; b=Axf3HL+RYjc9Mv4eOtHSnNptA/BXW8JCumC5jos6TRvmQ2sHQgZ2soC7Ijn7WK3KI5 bCmsNOP9mECATk0HR0gRP7rVylP01auTB63y7NRNBCbmP96ihg6ZRE9Kgw+vfV58vweu pWmYV5dYfRAJXPjCYpTMcBskUFpwwkEkIaDkfYDZgovEw7qxsWUlrhyw0Fj4+3wdyZzy /+yVJ270nwhTE2FraJNrbeKqWmj3OMvscBABJvJhNN8jdhkqK9HU7PkSFlj9xv89+Fqb WanhkJAbT24raFQNZ7cOv53OlBR0hKxnQQ9Xv/gGsFlwWzIWHeuAa6dNfenEqK3xQy8O KzIA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.131.37 with SMTP id oj5mr5431819oeb.77.1427570856872; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.48.151 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.48.151 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D781C55@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D781C55@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:27:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXS0JHgxpkdHaQLfy7RtP_MrpeOJQZw=XWZGceu+BktRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013cb9ccd0d1e805125e3d13"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/LNsM7sjIRNI-KWtvKQgNr2PQzZI>
Cc: "mmusic (E-mail)" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] connection:new with DTLS
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: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 19:27:39 -0000

Why would you even want to make new connections/associations? I'm not as
familiar with SCTP as DTLS, but I'd have to think that the same concerns
with demux apply there.
On Mar 27, 2015 10:53 AM, "Christer Holmberg" <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>
>
> As Justin mentioned during the 2nd MMUSIC session, RFC 5763 forbids usage
> of ‘connection:new’ for DTLS-SRTP.
>
>
>
> However, draft-sctp-sdp DOES allow it.
>
>
>
> -          In case of plain SCTP, there is no DTLS (and, there are no ICE
> procedures for SCTP transport), so that is fine.
>
>
>
> -          In case of SCTP/DTLS, I guess re-establishment of the SCTP
> association would also impact the overlying DTLS association. But, again,
> there are no ICE procedures for SCTP transport, so that should be fine.
>
>
>
> -          In case of UDP/DTLS/SCTP I guess one can re-establish the SCTP
> association without impacting the underlying DTLS connection, so that
> should be fine too.
>
>
>
> -          However, in case of TCP/DTLS/SCTP, the draft says that
> connection:new re-establishes both the TCP connection and the SCTP
> association, so I guess that would impact the DTLS connection.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>