IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Mon, 24 April 2017 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 0EE31131748 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 bJnYVGcX8Hi1 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 853E4131744 for <perc@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id m123so71955136wma.0 for <perc@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Mw/OuNDU9wBYod+gWpBW4BEQlzzc+Hfb89JG77JQ25Q=; b=n4uoiRPv53qF5b8jDfN9XAV1soCC/LBaR7/WUJ1nGmu6WTv/SNDj8ZugvwOucu4DFl lybiHEhGnPouW1Y1SoLhWIMiQmFn2L/iiU+CVxmEqHatK7lU1ou0LbqWVFHXqH6pPOjA +IVWp4Kf97J/silZScFEcF8a2ST8Ng0DZ7W/khOEL/lN9U9zFDB7LiEfyTg00SLkW+Td 9dFDQvoBcXAJfJZQkCpB7fjM/DlYbaD/XPxmcH9a3r9x/Xy87KZVH+MV78Wuy6R0nDuG aa68l7UD9ysWkcD8L9ll1CI0xvwkBTZ2M0lWy8qaVKJoMVHp5PsgXvIVAHNycFNm8rF7 rzbQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Mw/OuNDU9wBYod+gWpBW4BEQlzzc+Hfb89JG77JQ25Q=; b=TTUtTKCP+PsAzh4HyfvK/HAa4q8OnEHx+rrw7BcCH+BaooJXwYOhWmvmhhA7uwhQ7J eNhons5KsU5uOTPL2qk9oGOcNG/i7pHSy3Q7xk69kQHKzfXzzSYmvjz5Ca9YYBrM0aNj o/c2xiqone1o2mEf1hmqgjgsfa44DR9+oAHVhWU9lmawpFB0zBuRub2kjJRc7qK1WHTG ARqJ76sczxw+tMSe9CfuhaOUff23SdibrLF6QxaO5WMeR4y/rwfxIhtG2hEkFkmQ1tMV bURBwg72OzaxFmV9L0uLxSm04LKOxXNYxANGMhmrquVxnK3WKS0xu4EIyYpe/kxLQF43 hx1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4dcbcbwU6lomD5YD9wmJ4+M8HzJ98Kh9EjnT2KrdPNbVSoIBwL HLLGIsjtaGehXaEAomBVxxtU2JeBjA==
X-Received: by 10.28.47.202 with SMTP id v193mr10317812wmv.131.1493049153757; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.136.84 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <27ca2993-5c66-8388-7187-b47ed8ae1340@gmail.com>
References: <49c7de34-8bc6-bb7d-4524-0af26089eecb@gmail.com> <1CF6F66C-939F-484D-8C53-46ACB8CA69BE@vidyo.com> <27ca2993-5c66-8388-7187-b47ed8ae1340@gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRDaz7BT+GzxWJ0cM7rebhd2cu2WbPy+Mwjkk0wJK=6mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, "perc@ietf.org" <perc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11423f60713aa8054deb986b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/pdwT3t7okQz7nlXDI2YOTjLJ0NA>
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, 24 Apr 2017 15:52:51 -0000

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/04/2017 17:38, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 6:36 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
>>> sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have seen no more activity regarding the E2E RTP header issue.
>>>
>>> Is there a consensus that they can't be supported and that there is no
>>> use case for them? Does anyone have a different view? Should this be
>>> discussed and agreed on next virtual interim meeting?
>>>
>> At previous virtual interims, I believe the consensus was that no one had
>> a current use case for E2E RTP header extensions; however, if we didn’t
>> support them, retrofitting them into the protocol later would be extremely
>> difficult.  Thus, we (reluctantly) decided to support them.
>>
>> If they turn out to complicate the protocol too much, I suppose this can
>> be revisited.
>>
>
> Hi Jonathan, thanks for the heads up.
>
> Apart of making protocol complex, the way that rtp header extensions are
> supported on double encryption won't work on E2E mode except on the most
> trivial scenarios.


Since we're talking about E2E protection, it seems like the only scenario
is "the header travels unmodified from sender to receiver".  It seems like
this is supported in the simplest way possible; all the E2E headers are
grouped together, before the OHB.  Beyond the OHB, you can do whatever you
want.

What advanced scenarios are not supported here?

--Richard



> So, I expect that either we drop support or find a way to fix it.
>
> Best regards
>
> Sergio
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> Perc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email