Re: [MMUSIC] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-12: (with DISCUSS)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 C477F129642; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:59:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 MnlriDRiXHm7; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (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 94289129BDD; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id k15so249425936qtg.3; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:59:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3NRiSmrQTamzeiuUiSCguZUwzI8opB5aBkWz0FSVIfc=; b=aXFZ7/aFzCuQqqRhedajOQViDSNoKHplQo/QZ61LolUJNxvMb72WqtjP+wQCVkDcHo HbRN3IwWCf3uOcFG37VMia54D6PMYDXQpKxOatVzKrbFAvq/SKDbdJkK/saJMK1nbz95 cMopgnoaPP/Qf9G516FYJfR/wQAwrCgVOCXQm4CKRQPi8VRtuLfg4gVm/motbbehluia 4vJ31y5mpr4rp2zjO1jPtrowYTDLdBEyurxL23BS1q62ETuyklusdl0Kt0HYw5nLeuwh N+5f4rCguBVWV2NvE3QMdiADrqw49s2cC7TRWX1Bh0dutBy7sA/IszIDK1/SZLU+8uo0 0nwA==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3NRiSmrQTamzeiuUiSCguZUwzI8opB5aBkWz0FSVIfc=; b=KsRnJBpE54Y4SnPOF8xsjACepcWICzrlpkLACO18Lp4P8Q+PXAMgs6YKYHe+AIZ0rE Z0vzL5OmDei8Xxly3Jpl7oRBa3yAgkgoF1N/1TKzoBiRtkg4UdxflW4YSZ1WVxUKOdV5 zW6EBpzR6qR8yCCUT68EEBDOX+gJ4DkYaGuXqKxpBNhAzRCVrZfphSDcucGdR+I/glUl 9JyYrt76s6tU53j7PwEhSozXHojB2BVC8FGIs+cHD7ytv6hAHnetG/i5Z8e8KcXtvfi+ l1mJhNF1y9kxhG4vbj4n6Q3eLPd2Upu4G5/iTfEZAwKLG6VmHTnUizcS85SDpK/a18Bz 0gsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKlQ6ESW7E2/q8QFLh0mYFGwuVl1kgQ85lcZu3qhIQcIHu7Y07BBvkKy3tnK98FrULLoHC4ub9XXNK40g==
X-Received: by 10.200.55.112 with SMTP id p45mr29879758qtb.278.1485903543743; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:59:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.19.112 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:59:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3DCBB043-EF35-425A-A005-93488A726369@vidyo.com>
References: <148587892598.2448.6982128247176255180.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3DCBB043-EF35-425A-A005-93488A726369@vidyo.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:59:03 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVmw77jQheBLFKhmhw+iAEOXmjkHbvNf-MRgoDUEAZGDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/hkSrSoqsIsxDdCfSdwv36qJK9kM>
Cc: "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, The The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-12: (with DISCUSS)
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:59:06 -0000

On 1 February 2017 at 04:23, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> wrote:
>> (2) Wouldn't it be a good plan to say that TLS
>> as-used MUST conform to BCP195? If not, why not?
>
> My inclination would be to say yes, but I’ll let people with more of the existing implementations comment further in case there’s some issue.

If we said MUST, I suspect that we'd end up making a whole lot of
implementations non-compliant.  There's a lot of DTLS 1.0 out there.
That said, the same applies to SHA-1.

I guess it depends on your stance regarding what is as opposed to what
should be.

FWIW, we didn't ask this sort of question because the intent was to
clarify hash usage only, avoiding touching the rest of the document.