Re: [MMUSIC] The floodgates are open

So, possibly I am completely misunderstanding the state of play here,
but I thought that we had come to the understanding that ICE gave you
a boolean consent *for the length of the consent freshness*  (and that
we could (n theory, at least alter the length of the consent freshness
to handle the risk of voice-hammer style attacks).  In other words,
that boolean exposes you to risk only for the time of the consent
freshness, not for all time, and this mitigated the risk sufficiently.

What have I missed?

Ted

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> The consent that ICE provides is strictly Boolean.
>
> There is no way to distinguish between consent to receive 4kbps audio
> and 5Mbps video.  This creates an exposure for services and endpoints
> that support receipt of media, in particular contact centres and other
> services that are necessarily open to incoming sessions by default.
>
> This working group has an analogous problem.  The consent to entertain
> modifications to ICE did not stipulate any constraints on volume.
> Looking to exploit that shortcoming, Bernard and I have submitted a
> draft that addresses the protocol shortcoming:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-mmusic-rtcweb-bw-consent-00
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic