IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SRTP not mandatory-to-use

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 05 January 2012 03:25 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 EE22A21F86DA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:25:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 ApDVsYzd+LaT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2993821F86E6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so214930iab.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.236.67 with SMTP id us3mr773146igc.14.1325733915579; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r18sm196366580ibh.4.2012.01.04.19.25.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:25:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dajz8 with SMTP id z8so82612daj.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:25:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.74.41 with SMTP id q9mr838078pbv.129.1325733913232; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.44.197 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 19:25:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W587F56E976F80F9BA6308493940@phx.gbl>
References: <CAErhfrwu322=HTS0JZhum9EGfb73KmYS6CU_KMESyzEWhtvg2w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOeg-O+6===5tk0haxC8nLxUQyEUFRES2FAoFEf00fKng@mail.gmail.com> <CAErhfrxTKdo7Z+61x5ZcDt5ZM7C7ob5LNxMzwng_kk3Uqrp2_Q@mail.gmail.com> <4F01A790.4060704@alvestrand.no> <4F02A061.60905@jesup.org> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB762141EF8@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <4F035DD5.3050305@jesup.org> <CAOJ7v-1dziaA_ePCuMxjn6uhBgOH=ZVybUmLBwQi5qiuyOzDMA@mail.gmail.com> <BLU152-W469B2EB104C104547FC42393960@phx.gbl> <CAD5OKxuE0VhSsjKggj1mLOseLeDXarujvAG44yHkuZttagJggw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKhHsXHnT2p7yncha5-BQ=-Lzk3-N+tuijM-UqwfP1mPUi173A@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuH4v2Cs4Wx2SermhqX0SdH_rXUYgMms1UV3xo1_EsN-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCXACEo0QOLR-pw0AHuRJzKuKEiL7E5Oh8va9wWuFmbow@mail.gmail.com> <BLU152-W587F56E976F80F9BA6308493940@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:25:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtkKxUC2RNibk-9+R8LqVdsaY_19DCgB=rFDjpxQVGCnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d040f9c9cf7070a04b5bf7aee"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP not mandatory-to-use
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: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 03:25:17 -0000

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>wrote:

> [BA] An alternative is to force an initial offer preferring RTP/SAVP(F).
> That way, if both endpoints support SRTP and the offered key management
> scheme, it is guaranteed to be negotiated.  Only if the preferred option is
> not mutually supported could an alternative be selected.
>
>
I would actually prefer a situation where a deliberate decision by
application developer is required to allow RTP. By default, SRTP only
connection should be accepted with no option to bid down (ie offer with
RTP/SAVP(F) only and no null codec). If developer specifies that non-secure
connections are allowed, only then RTP/AVP should be present in the offer
or accepted in the answer (with crypto attributes or some other way to
specify that AVPS is also supported). This way there no "accidental" RTP
connections.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email