IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-23: (with DISCUSS)

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 16 February 2017 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 65A12129611 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:12:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 Hu5yCnTsy8Em for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FF94129626 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 5603 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2017 16:05:38 +0100
Received: from public-docking-pat-etx-mapped-0012.ethz.ch (HELO ?10.2.118.92?) (195.176.110.237) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 16 Feb 2017 16:05:38 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPPFUe-ZtW9Lt636OhoMH8ws2oVi94YQJeUQKXteC-XRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:05:45 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <81A8D5E0-6641-4136-AFE6-74D3C49C7707@kuehlewind.net>
References: <148724403323.15929.1432579178871938006.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C0040D6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <9F29D433-0AE1-43B0-B13E-AEC2861DFE75@kuehlewind.net> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C00438C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBPPFUe-ZtW9Lt636OhoMH8ws2oVi94YQJeUQKXteC-XRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/wxTHp_lfqdnbnl3XLd1M06y8a1Y>
Cc: "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "fandreas@cisco.com" <fandreas@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-mmusic-sctp-sdp-23=3A_=28with_DISCUSS=29?=
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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:12:22 -0000

By making the transport stack overly complicated? That really gives me headache…

But let me get back the the other question you asked: Is the TCP variant really needed here? Is this implemented or are there any plans to implement that?

Mirja



> Am 16.02.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>om>:
> 
> As Christer says. This design is optimized for making the media stack simpler, which
> using TLS here would not do.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> >>> Why is this using TCP/DTLS/SCTP instead of TCP/TLS/SCTP?
> >>>
> >> Because the way it is realized is by transporting SCTP on top of DTLS (as defined in draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps) and
> >> transporting DTLS on top of TCP (defined in RFC 4571).
> >
> > I got this but DTLS is a mapping to use TLS with UDP because UDP is an unreliable datagram transport. If you use TCP, you
> > should use TLS. And rfc4571 is not a mapping of DTLS to TCP.
> 
> The framing mechanism of RFC 4571 is used, with DTLS packets sent instead of RTP packets.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
>

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email