Re: [rtcweb] Resolving RTP/SDES question in Paris

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 17 March 2012 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 8581921F86B8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.043
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mIJdWyPw6lVM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E049121F86B2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so354904vbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=OYXcCgWTJQfi8d/mBZcp82feIngr6kO3LENTJ6iDQpc=; b=YhdH4CRdCHSyWH2SLZssrDC8VafOHOE5rH66HziJhvbmut4BvXGv8Z48f+4XBc7cJ7 YPWaE+Mx7F5e+/dUKL/3K1FUWzK+zfsbORdqiC+R4meZ1PlRzTluDppt/PPdDnnn49Gt 7Z+0csSfIIB+F7sheAHlttWkKoTOVZtGHXN/6kxh/YJUxMsSzrUJ5gsaqDwCu5pVk5bR hpm0ZchH3XJIMZ9lI+hjIofNozqvIHcFQEyTSRHRfexYRo/L3eSlNmYQ2rOm2rTtFdvO pL2e2aIaeG7gNSiap9JMMF2lZb08QAKkNTHGpm46Q5FPQCwYzxlv9iUyjUiJ/lmqrADd cotQ==
Received: by 10.52.73.102 with SMTP id k6mr341142vdv.57.1332002318386; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.22.195 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.173]
In-Reply-To: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E1FECFC@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <4F4759DC.7060303@ericsson.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E1FEB69@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <4F63BA4E.305@jesup.org> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E1FEC15@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <9C904CF5-EDD4-4F4C-83C3-97053B947B17@phonefromhere.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E1FECFC@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:37:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPQXEUGTJAo2hSE3nq+JKnjtJdmqYj6BNAHnTiR7OQK6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkO/sRqoR9oeT3nJrmZGNnsWaUCrEQ5x9tVht73l9AmPpNJDn7saJbCfG8OndpNzVkRKrxg
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Resolving RTP/SDES question in Paris
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: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:38:40 -0000

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Ravindran, Parthasarathi
<pravindran@sonusnet.com> wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I think that you miss the point of RTP and ICE are (IPSec) encrypted between (RTCWeb client) endpoint and Enterprise during VPN connection. So, RTP & ICE packets from endpoint are routed in WiFi ISP as IP packet with encrypted payload and no security issues.

Partha,

I don't find the scenario you suggest particularly compelling.

Yes, it's true that it's more secure to run your communications over
a VPN than not, but it's not obviously the case that you necessarily
trust everyone who is on the VPN (after all, this is why companies
with VPNs run internal access controls on their systems). And it's
of course yet more secure to run point-to-point encryption even
when you are operating on a VPN.

With that said, even if we were to stipulate that the VPN case
is safe, you haven't explained why it's desirable not to cryptographically
protect the traffic in that case. Since it's easier and safer to
simply have only a secure mode of operation, I don't see
that this scenario is an argument in favor of RTP.

-Ekr