Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Tunnelling DTLS in SDP

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 11 July 2016 22:41 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 0EF3D12D0AE for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 XUjCiq6i-4kS for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::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 F2C1D12B02A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id l125so105618045ywb.2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:41:20 -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=pa8KOKHuQkqdPMXJ3OimSiXtzmqcfibWJlbxGsUBGvc=; b=pcSN9/RJGLAbmvtdWWB6KBFKF9lbRsnlS9eSc4u2BrrLyLZoAk3aYU4vy3r9DdNJZb yIgndB1/675HnDFN03TW1UYUEzSpYbfSyMlIkmydZC/uXe0GBOfrmnSeYNtoIEG0BGbg r8NGXPbgAyp4UWE9d6u1DAbsJUPlwKlEcASZn0M/jLHKO4f/M084cwgC72bN73HLwlqt Ih5QF7LjiWsUGe+QXC0csYqM6LUnlD4ttfMA7ZfzL6F+13obEeNBFYNspVvFOyHcgSs2 6weaF+T1VxLfX4RUAbK+kflns8xfqw62qkFdYxV5XM1mod7uQmbzmkToGTvWdk5V54rM trEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pa8KOKHuQkqdPMXJ3OimSiXtzmqcfibWJlbxGsUBGvc=; b=gb4oAIUS6JFLBrbMCBx+R0lx/CSyV1LfB7bGkWhKNOtVrDsGu35f/nuL0v8UTcVYrX aXt2PV6cg9r+6GRDEsbeB2bKet2D1UBq5zpIW2iYIbT77BlPUj8QoVTUygijP5/smtbB /2k41ytBzi77olYe0w5ZrDuVoR26UaPoKsLNK91iw4BHydfxVhu8KFNZ/SYeFmhj4gHK sCkXzitKQi7kPF+mFo7WePMcNL4NEqo7nWOdY6yk9999r59E1uYqXw4b53kiEBtuL3ws V6VUxV+JRkhCvWlrbgO+4msk27zzOCPrHC6oGwvULejYDJ8xGlnGxeF5ibUFaae2QJlq Qrig==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIlAmotC3Z/+r8BpGNFqoIxopqDpyCLcpKmdcDLVo4e4/VLoj8YjLFqKqE3tWyWeuabllHDlVfPn0JQ3Q==
X-Received: by 10.37.209.5 with SMTP id i5mr13716680ybg.146.1468276880162; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.152.13 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7DF2166A-3AF4-4591-AB25-8C5415875E8D@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CABcZeBOM1KoXpXFhvjS753EVpsMENWVen3CCdFj8ry36vPH0dg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxt2+YAJfR1q4qyhv_0D7AqMmrsTENTGNw-_vo9Dzr-ejA@mail.gmail.com> <16EBD211-7FAD-43F1-A855-639EC17A17FE@cisco.com> <CAD5OKxsA8UOE83GP67h0NB9H3Lqmw0eC6nhjB=A=7GwdeZf3fw@mail.gmail.com> <7DF2166A-3AF4-4591-AB25-8C5415875E8D@phonefromhere.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:40:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMh7-P3C-pZVfUhie=FdCn6oQjmJBqJa_XAVrox7XkcGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: T H Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06fc0adff3f1053763d960"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Upc0OTQc9n1bSw7hjmQ6_r8UTfo>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Tunnelling DTLS in SDP
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 22:41:23 -0000

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:33 AM, T H Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote:

>
> On 11 Jul 2016, at 17:19, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
> I would definitely like to proceed with this. There are certain issues
> related to forking and new associations being setup by the answering party,
> but I think they are resolvable. On the other hand, the benefits of reduced
> call setup up time definitely make this worthwhile.
>
>
> As I said (remotely) at the last meeting,
> I am distinctly _unkeen_ on the aesthetics of this - it ties us to ever
> uglier and larger SDP, it breaks software layer separation in the stacks,
> it will no doubt presume a single DTLS implementation, it will be _fun_ to
> test, and I anticipate it will open some ugly attack vectors
> to the javascript kiddies.
>

> Last I heard EKR was going to experiment with it and come back with a view
> on how (in)accurate my doom-saying was.
> I haven't heard the reply...
>

We're working on an implementation now but it took a while to divert the
staff.

-Ekr


>
> - If folks want a corridor conversation about this next week in Berlin,
> I'll be there.
>
> T.
>
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Quick questions for folks …  is an idea that we should explore a bit
>> deeper before making decisions about it? or should we not proceed? or
>> should we proceed? Just looking for feedback on where this should go next
>>
>> Thanks, Cullen
>>
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to call your attention to a draft I just published with a
>>> possibly stupid
>>> idea.
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-dtls-in-sdp-00
>>>
>>> A nontrivial fraction of call setup time in WebRTC is the DTLS handshake.
>>> This document describes how to piggyback the first few handshake messages
>>> in the SDP offer/answer exchange, thus reducing latency.
>>>
>>> Comments welcome.
>>>
>>>
>> One other issue I thought off was that with DTLS SDP either offerer or
>> answerer can start a new DTLS association. When answerer starts a new
>> session it will have exactly the same problems as forking, since this will
>> create multiple DTLS sessions with the same client random. This can be
>> solved with some sort of fallback mechanism to either regular DTLS setup or
>> to sending a ClientHello in the answer.
>>
>> Regards,
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>