Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sun, 03 September 2017 20:57 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 19EF31241F3 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 T0KtCHn_j90i for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (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 842E513233D for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s187so18209688ywf.2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/hD00zfeDKArOhLLA1EPxEa6UP6gyxzuAf7BRKLJFms=; b=n0pR4VtFgq74+lk4iM8aL5zJoV7IqTAA6P86qWd3VXsQtNnct4AEPWffp+dDTl/DZJ 5OO55O8SAqf7CfT3YGjoO6FClNHzN6PONAHTmi3ZCB++GKf2/FjGTHdWODU8wu5e6cEz ptnIrjs22otK+QK5vjIegSZ2W1qmP+rwr4Iw9uGUGGz83KseR4Z0UtEP1kf/oIaKWK2B yt8jlzzPb43ksK20AOLI3iNc+1E7VNACQiun0R4iJEEKHU4RogtnN08iH8mXUzzEyYIh YZaR2PUAbXxqiaEnSG0Sf+DBwq1CC85p1nfrWbZ9wwL1eKHpPN2op1Tjsavb+/OIGn31 Ho4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/hD00zfeDKArOhLLA1EPxEa6UP6gyxzuAf7BRKLJFms=; b=fYyLx2kvMmLjyzteAM/kWnsryK4EKKCj00A8No0hem7gdKQBAALm2WKvybmsDiO5N3 J/v0ivwEQwsXsjDkHwd1z70jGOSKYuEE6ppe8cC+f/cL0yUcQ6DyAMgCQhqCKHKhPbbx D1ppbLvClwNuu/f9evRxeiIKoGHKPjcbgayXzQQftDRfZcR8SQZjmd03lEv604ifSQbh fFxCSnbIcEv4aEWkk3N2u8A21c0uavSUe2CEbSac4EZnnxwYj8YcN3K+Ykv18gvqu2Cv KJFtKJqqRdXKooke7k/g705F6vZXmkT09wa2L/WmDe3BBUwZLeSme6krpL1H7YwUvwHC IwGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhwoVFawlicwbjvp7/zaE3xSbe/huNSK5apPNfg2pzBqGfoQD2k lsHDCcJffUK0Q5mkJqrDXSbBqpkzvCeLgAo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6Z002T8mWFoRn0R/aRcrURUplShJrXM6n9jjrFJ6iOXIZQdsA1vVy+lwgLWmQSEaUTnKQrN0r5BqF8XawM8a0=
X-Received: by 10.37.160.144 with SMTP id y16mr1920028ybh.339.1504472225769; Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.218.130 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B562869A2@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
References: <f353ad39-4ee5-4661-8e99-7fab6e394e91@nostrum.com> <CAOW+2dtv8r7qTyNxWY8NacfEh+Ojk5ObVAXEur3D4GyMw89YaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOJgyva5e-ykH-RkKN=BJPrXVYLu8vZbbNBv0xscv6bOA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B562818F7@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBNv4fdFTJ+tXeBkMDqbMCEw916Txt8owFY-X7ijX0-FcA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B56282B43@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBNh9ep+tq4_wWHT6uqXZz=OS8VngrmtspPz5nJ=pZS0ow@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B562869A2@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2017 13:56:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPj6e=rtYHr4nyqeaB58TDBEjyB0xYeJJ+P63rO0DSw+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08289998978b3e05584f3c1a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Niy9B20wZH4n1-5UWYZr7yGMXM0>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2017 20:57:10 -0000
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Christer Holmberg < christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > >In my opinion, things should behave as follows. The semantics of the > indicators are: > > > > > >tls-id old ufrag new ufrag > > >------ -------------------------------------------------- > > >none No change ICE restart, same DTLS > > >old ICE restart ICE restart, same DTLS > > >new Error ICE restart, new DTLS > > > > > >However, in all cases but one, the answer MUST match the offer. I.e., the > answer must > > >do an ICE restart iff the offer had one and a new DTLS connection iff the > offer had one. > > >However, if the answerer does not support tls-id, then it might respond > to a new tls-id > > >with no tls-id, which means it does not intend to make a new DTLS > connection. The offerer > > >can either accept that or tear everything down. > > > > > >I agree that the specs do not currently make this clear > > > > Because that’s not how the procedures are currently written. > Again, JSEP and this document are in conflict, hence it's unclear. > Now, based on your suggestion, if the offerer doesn’t know whether the > answerer supports tls-id, does that mean that the only way for the offerer > to ensure that the re-offer will trigger a new DTLS association is by > modifying the fingerprint set in the offer? > That's true in any case, because we have implementations which behave that way and we can't change them. > And, if the offerer does not change the fingerprint set, does not receive > tls-id in the answer, and chooses to “accept” it, would the offerer then > still start using (in subsequent offers/answers etc) the new tls-id, even > if a new DTLS association was not created? > I'm not sure it matters, as in this case the answerer doesn't care about tls-id. -Ekr > OR, would the offerer consider the new tls-id “rejected” by the answerer, > and continue using the old tls-id? > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Christer Holmberg < > christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > >Yes. Indeed, that's the crux of the disagreement between JSEP and this > document > > > > So, just to clarify: in your opinion, if an endpoint receives an > offer/answer WITHOUT a tls-id, but with a NEW ufrag (read: ICE restart), > the new urfag will NOT trigger a new DTLS association. Right? > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Christer Holmberg < > christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi Ekr, > > > > What if the remote peer does not support/include the tls-id attribute? > > > > Regards, > > > > Christer > > > > *From:* mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Eric > Rescorla > *Sent:* 02 September 2017 22:36 > *To:* Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> > *Cc:* mmusic@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Issue 1, Adam said: > > > > " > > 1. (Issue 1c) The crux of the matter: does ICE restart cause DTLS to > restart? The primary rationale outlined in RFC5245 for restarting ICE is > changing the destination (IP address or port) of an ongoing media stream -- > which would commonly involve changing to a different physical device. While > it would, in theory, be possible to transfer the TLS state associated with > the connection between devices, this is rather cumbersome (and, as far as I > know, not generally supported by TLS libraries). From that perspective, it > is my opinion that the DTLS-SDP document is correct that an ICE restart > necessitates a new DTLS connection; and I conclude that JSEP needs to > change. > > " > > > > [BA] Agree that for consistency, it is best for an ICE restart to > necessitate a new DTLS connection, since an ICE restart can result in > connection to a different device (and the need for a new DTLS connection). > > > > I'm not persuaded by this: the primary reason for an ICE restart is not > changing devices but rather trying to deal with topology changes and/or > connectivity check failures. If you actually *do* change devices, then it's > also quite probably you will have a new certificate fingerprint, in which > case you will get a new DTLS connection in any case. In other words, tls-id > should be used to say "I want a new DTLS connection in spite of the > fingerprint being the same" (what JSEP says), not "I want to keep the DTLS > connection even though I am doing an ICE restart" > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > > MMUSIC -- > > [I will be posting a separate message to RTCWEB directing interested > parties to discuss this issue on the MMUSIC mailing list] > > During the IESG review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp, EKR identified some > conflicts between the procedures in DTLS-SDP and JSEP were identified. This > note is an attempt to summarize them. I have also made an initial proposal, > for each conflict, regarding which document needs to change, in and which > way. > > Issue 1 (quoting EKR), which raises a couple of additional sub-issues: > > 1. Assuming I understand this document correctly, it conflicts with > > the guidance in JSEP. Specifically, S 4 says: > > > > No default value is defined for the SDP 'tls-id' attribute. > > Implementations that wish to use the attribute MUST explicitly > > include it in SDP offers and answers. If an offer or answer does not > > contain a 'tls-id' attribute (this could happen if the offerer or > > answerer represents an existing implementation that has not been > > updated to support the 'tls-id' attribute), unless there is another > > mechanism to explicitly indicate that a new DTLS association is to be > > established, a modification of one or more of the following > > characteristics MUST be treated as an indication that an endpoint > > wants to establish a new DTLS association: > > > > o DTLS setup role; or > > > > o fingerprint set; or > > > > o local transport parameters; or > > > > o ICE ufrag value > > > > This seems to say that if there is no tls-id attribute, then an ICE restart > > (which necessitates a ufrag change) requires a DTLS restart. JSEP isn't > > incredibly clear on this point, but 5.7.3 seems to say that tls-id > > need not be present: > > > > * tls-id value, which MUST be set according to > > [I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp], Section 5. If this is a re-offer > > and the tls-id value is different from that presently in use, > > the DTLS connection is not being continued and the remote > > description MUST be part of an ICE restart, together with new > > ufrag and password values. If this is an answer, the tls-id > > value, if present, MUST be the same as in the offer. > > > > I believe that the first sentence is in error, as we clearly > > can't have JSEP implementations requiring that tls-id be present. > > > > ... > > > > o If the remote DTLS fingerprint has been changed or the tls-id has > > changed, tear down the DTLS connection. This includes the case > > when the PeerConnection state is "have-remote-pranswer". If a > > DTLS connection needs to be torn down but the answer does not > > indicate an ICE restart or, in the case of "have-remote-pranswer", > > new ICE credentials, an error MUST be generated. If an ICE > > restart is performed without a change in tls-id or fingerprint, > > then the same DTLS connection is continued over the new ICE > > channel. > > > > I think the best interpretation of this is that if tls-id is not present > > (and hence unchanged) then ICE restart does not cause DTLS restart. > > This is also my memory of the consensus in RTCWEB. In any case, these > > two documents clearly must match. > > > > My observations/recommendations: > > 1. (Issue 1a) EKR is correct that the first sentence of the bullet > from JSEP needs to be removed so as to enable interoperation with non-JSEP > implementations. > 2. (Issue 1b) Additionally the final sentence of that bullet ("If this > is an answer, the tls-id value, if present, MUST be the same as in the > offer") conflicts with the definition of tls-id ("the offerer and answerer > generate their own local 'tls-id' attribute values, and the combination of > both values identify the DTLS association"). In this case, the DTLS-SDP > document would appear to be correct (the fact that the two parties choose > different IDs is integral to the mechanism's design), so JSEP needs to > change. > 3. (Issue 1c) The crux of the matter: does ICE restart cause DTLS to > restart? The primary rationale outlined in RFC5245 for restarting ICE is > changing the destination (IP address or port) of an ongoing media stream -- > which would commonly involve changing to a different physical device. While > it would, in theory, be possible to transfer the TLS state associated with > the connection between devices, this is rather cumbersome (and, as far as I > know, not generally supported by TLS libraries). From that perspective, it > is my opinion that the DTLS-SDP document is correct that an ICE restart > necessitates a new DTLS connection; and I conclude that JSEP needs to > change. > > > > Issue 2 (quoting EKR): > > 2. S 4 says: > > > > The mux category [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] for the 'tls- > > id' attribute is 'IDENTICAL', which means that the attribute value > > must be identical across all media descriptions being multiplexed > > [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. > > > > This is not actually what JSEP requires: > > > > different categories. To avoid unnecessary duplication when > > bundling, attributes of category IDENTICAL or TRANSPORT MUST NOT be > > repeated in bundled m= sections, repeating the guidance from > > [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], Section 8.1. This includes > > > > I suspect this is old text. > > > (Issue 2) JSEP is aligned with draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-38, > while DTLS-SDP does not. This is a largely aesthetic decision (although the > JSEP/BUNDLE approach does save a tiny handful of bytes), but I think > changing one document (DTLS-SDP) makes more sense than changing two. (I > suspect the BUNDLE formulation more closely tracks consensus anyway). > > > > /a > > > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > mmusic@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > > > > >
- [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Taylor Brandstetter
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Bernard Aboba
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts Christer Holmberg