Re: [MMUSIC] DTLS-SDP and JSEP Conflicts
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 02 September 2017 20:36 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 862E01241F3 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 XqbiGH4hJwUi for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22d.google.com (mail-yw0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22d]) (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 667C1132D7E for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id s187so12868035ywf.2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Sep 2017 13:36:40 -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=4A0WRYT+WHhBVuF73o1oM1th6AlqRTTyRe+rTk8TGik=; b=zJbk0YPwWex7lbcqMiUxFN1FqAuVfSNEX/WKY+RBmumz7izHXvxMpzTzUfCZCbcz8z tZbPX6FTu9w5vzCbkqQz8GHTsvQ0NC/OTQUgYBgj7ekBpZxIzQRcWTvNieV5mZdft+1a WajCmL5TKw9MeqmBpDz/8O/y0jLc1xnUHfsLxzQVUI8roG/NW3oFhbuAQK6/8TwnB1dj mJ1vQtZYPd2bBtYdyt494KPsZGb7W7xcdh8ynnfOcra6vul30aUVIpMBH5zyVfN57Kdz cQznYPvQ2wYQq3jNSsjQ5ryZIf4rR1GsQfCd+PE5Yx1A/BFSfjjuMcsPjb29PsTMLcwj YFGw==
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=4A0WRYT+WHhBVuF73o1oM1th6AlqRTTyRe+rTk8TGik=; b=cHjWuMY4XnROawFdJSfYXOiNx/qrLquYfsKqsF9pq3un6oiCWI4zE5TBVl+Tb12ctM fRCFhIMSldlPctdcTPFGVb04tVXwhfjWxUvoG3WqbieuB+xHhneozl+c2zyLJvGlrQ3V P3a2gXr80Tkof1wyspBX2j8fnYdxqT9NJTkhKjClKoVOEFbZ6wV1Tqw5u/ji6oCy/9OL hAOHdMK5HXw8H1iepfz0FMdjmHZMR98lV7z8yfYnQrrpimX3/ETEXYPf05oZkdxe30xV S15PefXrLS0HhrvKkWBzBSDUvg6Ge3+xFLzvMJYxzwlcV4BYPQLJBjxrPfI31rVZJY0e p99A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjKQX4kyN16DI0GRDl9KobTh2N3gRHbr5TpRjspGaYqBSr+aGU8 ME5UWjqd1H7o/NQ9qnhm1nkwIjJplHmz
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6FQUZHBkIzLU/bJwEVx9WgkjXpWJk/C8H5YzVniS+nD1UdwO1IuUjXO6l0eTl03l5CEP46+IQgugaxFOo7zDg=
X-Received: by 10.37.208.195 with SMTP id h186mr5369420ybg.345.1504384599628; Sat, 02 Sep 2017 13:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.218.130 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dtv8r7qTyNxWY8NacfEh+Ojk5ObVAXEur3D4GyMw89YaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f353ad39-4ee5-4661-8e99-7fab6e394e91@nostrum.com> <CAOW+2dtv8r7qTyNxWY8NacfEh+Ojk5ObVAXEur3D4GyMw89YaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 14:35:59 -0600
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOJgyva5e-ykH-RkKN=BJPrXVYLu8vZbbNBv0xscv6bOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c05615aaab24205583ad542"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/ckaQFypPa-o0vVqOSMvXE3B_q9Y>
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 20:36:44 -0000
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