Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-01

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Sat, 20 June 2015 22:05 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 988211AC7E8 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 15:05:44 -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 UfPhkyP8PEjy for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 15:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D75DD1AC529 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 15:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f799f6d000000faf-eb-5585e3b52b86
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 76.F9.04015.5B3E5855; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 00:05:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.27]) by ESESSHC002.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.24]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 00:05:40 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-01
Thread-Index: AdCrWa7CoSEAxl9nTzqDK97DYyB2FgAFrAaAAAzv3QA=
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 22:05:40 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D8F4863@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D8F4457@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <5585A71F.4080808@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5585A71F.4080808@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre7Wx62hBtcn8FtMXf6YxWLFhgOs Dkwef99/YPJYsuQnUwBTFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAldG2/tNjAVLJCqOPP3A2MB4X6iLkYNDQsBE 4uoh+y5GTiBTTOLCvfVsXYxcHEICRxkl3v9+zgLhLGaU2DC3nQWkgU3AQqL7nzZIg4iAr8Sz x7fZQGxhAS+JV0fbwEpEBLwlXq+2gSixkph9u5MdxGYRUJV4cfUOE0gJL0jraR8QU0ggX2LG L3eQCk4BHYnNU96DDWQEuub7qTVMIDazgLjErSfzmSCuFJBYsuc8M4QtKvHy8T9WCFtJYtHt z1D1OhILdn9ig7C1JZYtfA1WzysgKHFy5hOWCYyis5CMnYWkZRaSlllIWhYwsqxiFC1OLU7K TTcy0kstykwuLs7P08tLLdnECIyPg1t+G+xgfPnc8RCjAAejEg+vwsmWUCHWxLLiytxDjNIc LErivDM254UKCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYNTP7ZlmdvPSgpk57F6fp/XZ3E8/ sU+Kb5PI99kmn/7+kxP88MW1ht2j+YuRhk+udtOyxRcvGmutO6xROF0lmXPfasXsUAfOj/48 10SmSSoIcVrWB91l99Wad1BENJI18Kfv+4jzHWlek75PceA8amh9RXLzZ/U7f5f/WdEWe7B4 0uHtj0vOqCmxFGckGmoxFxUnAgBXCq9ucAIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/zs0Vip396iJLjKMTCET_jEF5AgE>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-01
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: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 22:05:44 -0000

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your comments. See inline.


> * Section 2.1:
>
>    When a new DTLS association is established, an endpoint MUST use a
>    new set of transport parameters (IP address and port combination).
>
> The above seems slightly ambiguous: does "an endpoint" mean "each endpoint" or "one (of the two) endpoints"?
>
> IIUC we have established that the important point is that the 5-tuple must change. So at least one side must change the address or port. But if one > side is known to do so, then the other side need not do so. So I suggest changing the above to:
>
>    When a new DTLS association is established, one of the endpoints
>    MUST use a new set of transport parameters (IP address and port
>    combination).

The idea is that the endpoint(s) which does something the requires a new set of transport parameters needs to use a new set.

So, if e.g. endpoint A wants to change the fingerprint, which requires a new DTLS association, endpoint A needs to use a new set of transport parameters.

> But there may be more to sort out about the o/a protocol for guaranteeing this. I can see a few:
>
> - if the offer has connection:new then the offer must have new
>   transport parameters. Else, if the offer has connection:existing
>   but the answer has connection:new then the answer must have new
>   transport parameters.

Yes.

> - if the answer has connection:new and the offer didn't have new
>   transport parameters, then the answer must have new ones.

Yes.

> Something about the above should probably go into section 6.
>
> * Section 5.1
>
>    A 'connection' attribute value of 'new' indicates that a new DTLS
>    association MUST be established.  A 'connection' attribute value of
>    'existing' indicates that a new DTLS association MUST NOT be
>    established.
>
> I think this is wrong - that the answerer is permitted to answer with connection:new.

The was meant to say that an endpoint sending 'new' needs to use a new set of transport parameters.

However, if the offerer sends 'new', meaning it uses a new set of transport parameters, I am not sure we need to mandate the answerer to use a new set of transport parameters even if it sends 'new' in the answer.

> * Section 6.3
>
>    If an answerer receives an offer that contains an SDP 'connection'
>    attribute with a 'new' value, the answerer MUST insert a 'new' value
>    in the associated answer.  The same applies if the answerer receives
>    an offer that contains an SDP 'connection' attribute with a 'new'
>    value, but the answerer determines (based on the criteria for
>    establishing a new DTLS association) that a new DTLS association is
>   to be established.
>
> I think I previously commented on this: the 2nd sentence "The same applies if ... attribute with 'new' value ...". *That* 'new' should be 'existing' - it > is covering an alternative to the first sentence. And this aligns with my comment above about section 5.1.

I'll have a look at that.

Regards,

Christer