IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Perc] Drop support for E2E RTP header extensions

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Mon, 15 May 2017 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D086129471 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 May 2017 10:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 3OsBV0cOxhT7 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 May 2017 10:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp117.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp117.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB91B128E19 for <perc@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 May 2017 10:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp31.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp31.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4E208249C7; Mon, 15 May 2017 13:34:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp31.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 8E2B9249CB; Mon, 15 May 2017 13:34:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.24.58.24] ([UNAVAILABLE]. [128.107.241.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Mon, 15 May 2017 13:34:46 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <em9a829f3a-e2ed-4250-8e7e-cad6623a30a2@sydney>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 07:34:42 -1000
Cc: perc@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FD826FBD-6D15-4791-8C9F-450E83EA1EC6@iii.ca>
References: <49c7de34-8bc6-bb7d-4524-0af26089eecb@gmail.com> <1CF6F66C-939F-484D-8C53-46ACB8CA69BE@vidyo.com> <27ca2993-5c66-8388-7187-b47ed8ae1340@gmail.com> <CAL02cgRDaz7BT+GzxWJ0cM7rebhd2cu2WbPy+Mwjkk0wJK=6mw@mail.gmail.com> <aef9a32f-f761-c9e8-de99-57c4acfd5088@gmail.com> <8FD07F5D-CD52-445B-AF75-BA1696F3A151@mozilla.com> <aff1a9bf-7dcb-71e6-3d01-afe5cac87ca5@gmail.com> <E234DDC1-9AB5-4C64-91C0-A8FCB58DA351@iii.ca> <8ddbf495-ac23-8529-aa0b-a233a0b336c0@gmail.com> <74BE8407-9AC0-45D3-9476-5C109A7B7A3C@iii.ca> <286A6294-EC1E-49D3-88BB-023178DB07BD@packetizer.com> <2810AD6C-0F45-41CC-BC6F-4303B5649CB0@iii.ca> <em9a829f3a-e2ed-4250-8e7e-cad6623a30a2@sydney>
To: Paul Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/Ur4R5XgZehtUc433tw3AG5o701A>
Subject: Re: [Perc] Drop support for E2E RTP header extensions
X-BeenThere: perc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing <perc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perc>, <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/perc/>
List-Post: <mailto:perc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc>, <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:38:12 -0000

So let me just confirm one thing with both of you (Paul & Sergio) ... you understand that the current design supports both E2E and HbH header extensions and which way a given extension is handed is currently determined by specification of the system not negotiated over SDP? 

Yes we could change any of that but I just want to make sure we are all on the same page of where we are now 



> On May 13, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
> 
> Cullen,
> 
> I say we should NOT support E2E extensions.  Make them HBH and the MDD can re-write header extensions values or remove them as it sees fit.
> 
> Sergio, you want E2E extensions?  Seems like it's going to be rather complicated to support with the current design.
> 
> Paul
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@iii.ca>
> To: "Paul Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
> Cc: perc@ietf.org
> Sent: 5/13/2017 10:33:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Perc] Drop support for E2E RTP header extensions
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 12, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I don't see how we can support any E2E extension given the offerer specifies the ID mapping. Multiple endpoints in a conference might indicate any number of didn't ID values for the same extension.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Just so we are all clear on how this would work ... sorry for the repetition ....
>> 
>> 
>> If Alice's UA offers urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:encrypt with and ID of 1 and the conferences wants to use 22 because that is what other endpoints are using, the conference server simply rejects that in the answer then does and reoffers that with an ID of 22.
>> 
>> This of course does not take care of Sergio request that the conference bridge would like to tell ALice's UA if this should be protected E2E or not. I'll send a separate email on that.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Perc mailing list
>> Perc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> Perc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email