Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture

Christer Holmberg <> Fri, 14 June 2013 07:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C537B21F9C49 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.737
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.737 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.512, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oukilfKfUqwX for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB3121F9C46 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9e6d000002643-37-51bacc0ddda7
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 26.CB.09795.D0CCAB15; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:53:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:53:49 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>, Hadriel Kaplan <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
Thread-Index: AQHOZrwhuAjKD2BFwkKUQ/PJIpp3+ZkxOSqAgADdvYCAAA4GAIACkewAgAAiY7A=
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:53:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrS7vmV2BBj8/W1t82vSJ2WLtv3Z2 ByaPJUt+Mnl8fHqLJYApitsmKbGkLDgzPU/fLoE7Y+Oms4wFk8UrHi/Ia2C8JtTFyMkhIWAi cbdhDROELSZx4d56ti5GLg4hgcOMEueefGOCcJYwSkw6uZy1i5GDg03AQqL7nzZIg4hAisSS i5/AmpkF1CXuLD7HDmILC1hKHH+wnwmixkpi1tXvjBC2n8SuaS3MIGNYBFQlfr4BC/MK+Eos nj+HHWLVQiaJNTtegs3hFNCRuNrfzQZiMwId9/3UGqhd4hK3nsyHOlpAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/ wM6UEFCUWN4vB1GuJ3Fj6hQ2CFtbYtnC18wQewUlTs58wjKBUWwWkqmzkLTMQtIyC0nLAkaW VYzsuYmZOenl5psYgRFycMtvgx2Mm+6LHWKU5mBREuf9dGpXoJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q 8SFGJg5OEMEl1cAY7/hg9Zx1lUU7vPfsf3Ms6xGvxcbdM95mdtlEFmvqy6nf+igfE8sVVL34 /q9XBiJOlg+eFs2rd2JOUF2tmriha3vioXOcbiFv5zUxa+3N33hs9e+0opz1LkxWlZo3/jar lOxkYuKaXCdU/4zP93rl26szJuTX1y9TW/2eOT44af6F+1p3/L2VWIozEg21mIuKEwFb7lTe YwIAAA==
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:54:11 -0000


I agree with what Magnus says.

Also, in general, in order to get most out of meetings (virtual or physical), it is good to have mail discussions. I don't even remember the last time I saw an e-mail on this topic (until it was announced that the meeting won't be held, that is).



-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
Sent: 14. kesäkuuta 2013 10:44
To: Hadriel Kaplan
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture

On 2013-06-12 18:29, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

> What we had talked about back in IETF 83 (or some previous meeting) 
> was whether DTLS-SRTP would be the only MTI key exchange, or whether 
> SDES would also be MTI.
> We did not come to consensus in IETF 83, and tabled it for more 
> discussion.  Since then it has been put at the end of the agendas, 
> resulting in us running out of time for it.  At the last IETF 86 or 
> Boston interim, one of the WG Chairs (I don't remember who) said we'd 
> have a virtual interim dedicated to cover it.  Now we don't.  Ergo, we 
> don't have a plan.

It was me that said we where going to schedule an interim meeting. Which we chairs failed to to in the previous cycles between meetings which was our bad.

However, this time we have proposed a time and requested people to submit agenda items to that meeting. Don't hold us WG chairs responsible because you in the WG aren't providing input into what should be discussed.

I see an tendency on the mailing list to shout "Security Descriptions is important!". But, when we ask for people willing to provide a proposal for how to integrate it, or even provide input into a discussion that could reach a WG conclusion that Security Description or some other additional keying than DTLS-SRTP is desired people goes silent.

Without proposals we chairs where not seeing reasons to hold this interim meeting.

If you want to discuss this, write a draft describing how how your additional keying is to be integrated, what the pro and cons of it. That will enable direct discussion of a proposal. The WG clearly are opinionated on this matter, but apparently don't have energy to produce proposals.


Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto:

rtcweb mailing list