Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 15 October 2012 04:32, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> For TMMBR, that's wrong - TMMBR messages are supposed to result in a TMMBN
> being sent, even if the TMMBN shows a bandwidth that is not affected by the
> TMMBR.

I'm glad that the TMMBR issue was raised.  I considered putting it in
the draft, but decided to keep my layers discrete.

An attacker does not need significant bandwidth in order to have the
RTCP sent to them.  Doubly true if they make it appear as though there
are lots of receivers in the RTP session.

(You might consider this further support for moving to DTLS-SRTP.)

> If it's needed, it does show a requirement that we might want to carry through to
> RMCAT (that the recipient will want to get an ack that the sender has agreed to
> abide by a certain bandwidth limit).

This specific issue was one raised in EKR's submission to the IAB
workshop.  It's a good requirement.  I don't know how realistic it is,
but it's definitely an important thing to try to address.