[rtcweb] RTCP consent approach comment
"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Tue, 20 March 2012 01:06 UTC
Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3DE521F87A7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.86
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.739, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ai4Pk4AwE-BV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys010aog107.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog107.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB24D21F879A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usma-ex-hub1.sonusnet.com ([69.147.176.212]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob107.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2fYJgqYqL2bxnV7dRCrrTkMAEf1qU+6@postini.com; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:06:46 PDT
Received: from INBA-HUB02.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.87) by usma-ex-hub1.sonusnet.com (66.203.90.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:06:59 -0400
Received: from INBA-MAIL01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by inba-hub02.sonusnet.com ([fe80::80b9:dc60:caf7:7dfc%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:36:41 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Thread-Topic: RTCP consent approach comment
Thread-Index: Ac0GNb+uCDyCq5LMT2C19AgEYj79Kg==
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:06:40 +0000
Message-ID: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E1FFDFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [121.242.142.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] RTCP consent approach comment
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:06:47 -0000
Eric, Sec 4.2.3 mentions about RTCP consent approach is not adopted for 1) Small window attack of RTP 2) Tough for legacy non-RTCP endpoint to implement RTCP I think that small window attack of RTP is possible in ICE as well in case attacker has access to offer SDP and the second reason is funny to recommend non-RTCP endpoint to implement ICE instead of implementing RTCP because this reason is equivalent of asking the person to buy cake who is struggling to buy bread. The missing information is that NAT traversal is not possible using RTCP mechanism. Could you please add "NAT traversal" as the one of the reason for not adopting RTCP consent approach. Thanks Partha
- [rtcweb] RTCP consent approach comment Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCP consent approach comment Harald Alvestrand