Re: [MMUSIC] Bundling data channel and RTP? - Text proposal - Second try

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 15 June 2015 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 D7C9D1B2E2B for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Rozk9B223kEa for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A520A1B2E0F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f799f6d000000faf-c5-557ee75a0daa
Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3E.DA.04015.A57EE755; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:55:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.27]) by ESESSHC023.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:55:22 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>, "GUBALLA, JENS (JENS)" <jens.guballa@alcatel-lucent.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Bundling data channel and RTP? - Text proposal - Second try
Thread-Index: AdClBipG7UfqYMuMRya9DuFvp6kbcwCYWjsAAADdq2AAAogRAAABgsaw
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:55:21 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D8D8C94@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D8BF21F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <547EE95EB794FD4DB8062F7A4C86D0BC4A3677BA@FR712WXCHMBA13.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D8D881E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC7AD94962@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC7AD94962@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW7087pQgzl7mCz+tP5itDi42c9i 6vLHLBYrNhxgdWDxaH22l9Xj7/sPTB5LlvxkCmCO4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mq4/OExS8EJw4pd S/+wNTAuMehi5OSQEDCRmDz9JyuELSZx4d56ti5GLg4hgaOMEjM//GSEcBYzSqx62AlUxcHB JmAh0f1PGyQuIrCAUWLdgiVsIN3MAsYSNzZfYwGxhQWCJRpfXWEEsUUEQiQ+XWiAst0kbvyf wARiswioSmybeQZsM6+Ar8TrH9fZIZZtZ5J4d7edGSTBKRArcen2HrChjEDnfT+1hglimbjE rSfzmSDOFpBYsuc8M4QtKvHy8T+od5QkFt3+zARyNLOApsT6XfoQrYoSU7ofskPsFZQ4OfMJ ywRGsVlIps5C6JiFpGMWko4FjCyrGEWLU4uTctONjPRSizKTi4vz8/TyUks2MQJj6+CW3wY7 GF8+dzzEKMDBqMTDm/CzNlSINbGsuDL3EKM0B4uSOO+MzXmhQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanF hxiZODilGhhXHS9dEDQtl9VlX8Abb8MLy5k+C22zX7FZ6vvOPqnXlf/ddwd12O3+d7K7dMaE FQ9+HBWfvfqZ8MvtW3+3zkmU36+5e0afs3BzE9c/izwx/yXKws39BtrePKnFl1P8RC2lpfQn OvKKZMievB3neVZ1VYURZ+rcZOXp90IeR89mdLHrPBW7MkWJpTgj0VCLuag4EQAo1As9jgIA AA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/V_3bvJPKlvn1Gi-iB-IMUgI-MA8>
Cc: "pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu" <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Bundling data channel and RTP? - Text proposal - Second try
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:55:27 -0000

Hi Albrecht,

Whatever the reason, the fact is that DTLS - for whatever reason - chose to use "association" instead of "connection" :)

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) [mailto:albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com] 
Sent: 15 June 2015 17:20
To: Christer Holmberg; GUBALLA, JENS (JENS); mmusic
Cc: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Bundling data channel and RTP? - Text proposal - Second try

Hello Christer,

wrt

> While I do realize that "connection" is not suitable for 
> connectionless protocols, in my opinion it was a mistake to use 
> "association", because it has caused lots of confusion. I often get 
> questions on what the difference between a DTLS association and DTLS 
> connection is :)

1st) There is not any contradiction between "connection" and "connectionless" (according to the basic reference model for communicaions (X.200)).
Id est, a (N)-connection is either operated in communication mode (§ 5.3.3/X.200) "connection oriented" (= "connection mode" § 5.3.3.2/X.200) or "connectionless" (§ 5.3.3.3/X.200).
=> no contradiction ("there are connectionless (N)-connections ...")

2nd) DTLS as protocol belongs to category connection-oriented, not connectionless.
The (DTLS)-connection is of type connection-oriented.


Furthermore: that's the reason why there are also "UDP connections" despite their connectionless nature.

Regards,
Albrecht


-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Montag, 15. Juni 2015 15:07
To: GUBALLA, JENS (JENS); mmusic
Cc: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Bundling data channel and RTP? - Text proposal - Second try

Hi Jens,

Thanks for your feeback! See inline.

>> -------------
>>
>> 12.  DTLS Considerations
>>
>>    One or more media streams within a BUNDLE group might use the
>>    Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol [RFC6347] in order
>>    to encrypt the data, or to negotiate encryption keys if another
>>    encryption mechanism is used to encrypt media.
>>
>>    When DTLS is used within a BUNDLE group, the following rules apply:
>>
>>    o  There can only be one DTLS association [RFC6347] associated with
>>       the BUNDLE group;
>
> [JG] I prefer the term "DTLS connection" over "DTLS association" 
> because I am not aware that the latter term is defined anywhere in the 
> scope of (D)TLS.
> RFC6347 is using the terms "connection" and "association" 
> interchangeably without any definition. On the other hand the term 
> "connection" is at least present in the glossary section of RFC5246.

RFC 5763 and RFC 5764, both related to DTLS-SRTP, use "association":


	"We use the term "association" to refer to a particular DTLS cipher
   	suite and keying material set that is associated with a single host/
   	port quartet.  The same DTLS/TLS session can be used to establish the
   	keying material for multiple associations."   (RFC 5763)


	"Each DTLS-SRTP session contains a single DTLS association (called a
	"connection" in TLS jargon),..." (RFC 5764)

While I do realize that "connection" is not suitable for connectionless protocols, in my opinion it was a mistake to use "association", because it has caused lots of confusion. I often get questions on what the difference between a DTLS association and DTLS connection is :)

>>    o  Each usage of the DTLS association within the BUNDLE group MUST
>>       use the same mechanism for determining which endpoints (the
>>       offerer or answerer) becomes DTLS client and DTLS server; and
>>
>>    o  If the DTLS client supports DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] it MUST include
>>       the 'use_srtp' extension [RFC5764] in the DTLS ClientHello message
>>       [RFC5764], The client MUST include the extension even if the usage
>>       of DTLS-SRTP is not negotiated as part of the session.
>
> [JG] I believe here "session" is referring to "SIP session", not to 
> "DTLS session", right? Should be explicitly stated in any case.

See below.

>>    NOTE: The inclusion of the 'use_srtp' extension during the initial
>>    DTLS handshake ensures that a DTLS renegotiation will not be required
>>    in order to include the extension, in case DTLS-SRTP encrypted media
>>    is added to the BUNDLE group later during the session.
>
> [JG] "Session": Same comment as above.

It's not DTLS, but it can of course be something else than SIP.

I guess we could say something like "multimedia session", "SDP session", or something...

Regards,

Christer