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

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 15 June 2015 13:07 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 C31EA1B35F3 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 06:07:25 -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 WhcGPpR1qTAV for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 06:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C0311B2D25 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79b66d000001131-ce-557ece09a674
Received: from ESESSHC014.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 73.1E.04401.90ECE755; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:07:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.27]) by ESESSHC014.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.60]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:07:20 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "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: AdClBipG7UfqYMuMRya9DuFvp6kbcwCYWjsAAADdq2A=
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:07:19 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D8D881E@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D8BF21F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <547EE95EB794FD4DB8062F7A4C86D0BC4A3677BA@FR712WXCHMBA13.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <547EE95EB794FD4DB8062F7A4C86D0BC4A3677BA@FR712WXCHMBA13.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01D0A785.592859D0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrS7nubpQg/fr5S2+vG9ksTi42c9i 61Qhi2tn/jFaTF3+mMVixYYDrBYNG6+wWsy4MJXZgcOj9dleVo+/7z8weeycdZfdY8GmUo8l S34yeaw4P5PF49aUggD2KC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6Mm0fjC27EVMx/852tgfFyaBcjJ4eEgInE /o0n2SBsMYkL99YD2VwcQgJHGSWuLPwE5SxmlLjasYe9i5GDg03AQqL7nzZIg4hAhMSmlilg NcwCv5gk/v2/DzZJWCBYovHVFUaIohCJTxcaoGwriaMbLjOB2CwCqhJX759jAbF5BXwl1nz9 yw5iCwksYJQ4vBFsAadArMSCW4/AZjICXff91BqwXmYBcYlbT+YzQVwtIvHw4mmoD0QlXj7+ xwphK0p8fLWPEeK4XkaJE7/aoJYJSpyc+YRlAqPoLCSzZiGrm4WkDqJIW+LpzadQtrzE9rdz mCFsa4kZvw6yQdiKElO6H7JD2KYSr49+ZFzAyLGKUbQ4tTgpN93IWC+1KDO5uDg/Ty8vtWQT IzDiD275rbqD8fIbx0OMAhyMSjy8CT9rQ4VYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ887YnBcqJJCeWJKanZpa kFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgVErae/tKW0z1X/We6rPnqdiv1zvf7hos8HG+3/2fX36ZpH3V1Mt u4Py/rbbGfiyZdPniLhpq+Tw88iv/Pkjb9a2yrN+9VbltRrzWibICQRqLJ5pIvrfXPfk2vIf T0+GL/+76UhWb23fm+ML1ls3H8h6ork+MjdF4tWklpI65qYUL7byzKfXPyqxFGckGmoxFxUn AgCr+ulH2QIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/wNQE2uvjumpf67q6QwnetUJknd0>
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 13:07:25 -0000

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