IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] DTLS, DTLS-SRTP, and 5-tuples

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 13 March 2015 11:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451361A012D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 VOpb0jo8azMM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (mail-qg0-f44.google.com [209.85.192.44]) (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 507791A00FF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgfh3 with SMTP id h3so24790028qgf.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JV4QAQwtLRhhY9JUkf1TkLHAzQZIkEpXxmPjWrbnKZc=; b=NcoTcp8qhITRG2Uo+0V+FZOSMgqDeCVhxdfaazSYsldbJgJ3lWUtERsTE/fs8juR2o fkl8hYsr70EPe28488+cWLqT7x/9hEZA4ACZCqcRdYIrsuJpcA+I0oSMuc9rtWFcrNWU AdxYOc1S+uI0frm9i6PeGViUB0WlaDPLIwJ8E32a++1S+Ej4PRr+4b7UhHXir2Z66J4+ S2OgM6piQpa07pgC1k2CBygEa09RA3JSxRqIF261xEZfQrnvII2lFZSZjdhSQ//ZN0r/ EGDzR+IUB2IhIxYVeslinIAk9Hr3ECRpBZJ3mrX+6o7bPOmVPJlTFnEOLxuyHPwp/oef 0Eng==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQntVl72oQ3UrySh5YR6j1hCwH7Mm5cbk19/X9dcqFp+AB8JSXoYs4T4xOA98uAwFnN7cyV4
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.17.164 with SMTP id 36mr41952878qkr.18.1426244826597; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.214.137 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.214.137 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7395D9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <54F74B02.1070902@jive.com> <CAD5OKxs8JYG3-Vvndi59ZrdPE7UTj22ozD4tcWTHgzWrHv=q7Q@mail.gmail.com> <54F756B2.60408@jive.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D726AD8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxu7py3HbrFjxTDZS5ECFzx7vd=wpjve-gT6gWwksjEu+g@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D726B71@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBO1O6sA8MqvWkCDu3RPLz5-P2G65Us28i0baOavDnRT7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuWCdgMR5Kxjv9BSwZ3Jm9kGXx9Pi-9FrfsnuQZ_91jAA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D726DC1@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfkipJhsy7-40+=d9xMUf4RJGdn3_fABL3NN2KuFNvS2BA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D727570@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfmfvz3NWSjcovGBytiOTbR6kFfyh0vx5cXoMJtytfGzRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxsu3D0xHY-zYbDu1hyH_+4=3mWDvW2i98WCVZ+29BpKCw@mail.gmail.com> <CA5E97EE-99F8-44D8-B05B-C9EFDED1A9BB@vidyo.com> <2F467A7E-7A6C-4B1B-985A-0D9C089BE973@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1TjZOZ5G31vy_Gt73ADGLRay1RHVeMi=H6Q4=N1b6HLA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7367A0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CALiegfmyp=v6thk4eLz7nL1BHh2Qj7jmC84tdG7ufg8HPXsVKA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7369C9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxtCswToNzoZnnqJ5M66mjNjKJoA++WYNqN5155n+CWXsA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D736AC0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxs1grSqAG32mf__wtsjpo68jZmKonbd+EsJmYNsDHUbFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-3YypG1s9KXOCA+Fo58SuVuUk5-thcSc0k3N2j=4ZmJoA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D737A76@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAOJ7v-1baW-jme7pApSFZc7aDXAmVm++p60-c9ZtjFxHSybf=g@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7395D9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:07:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfm0i1Zko-rK98ZW8-Zat_LyBomgrJeQt-7eOgf7Mg9sdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1147586240a3bd05112980e0"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Ao05U1fhHsjiwHI4aM9LgC4-AUs>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DTLS, DTLS-SRTP, and 5-tuples
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:07:09 -0000

Guys, this thread is getting surreal :)
On 13 Mar 2015 12:02, "Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> >>>>>> New things can be defined in the future. When they do, they should
> treat ICE a virtual communication channel that
> >>>>>> provides unreliable packet transport with no order guarantees which
> can span multiple 5-tuples.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then the scope of what we discuss now should not be "whatever
> protocol" - it should be the specific protocols we are discussing.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think ICE-bis should define protocol requirements for the protocols
> that can run on top of ICE, which includes:
> >>>> 1. Ability to run over unreliable packet based transport with no
> order guarantees
> >>>> 2. Ability to demux with STUN packets
> >>>> 3. Not make any assumption about IP addresses, ports, or other
> transport level protocols attributes such as TOS.
> >>>
> >>> I think these are good criteria. Note that TCP would meet these
> criteria, and I see no problem running TCP atop ICE (we used to do this in
> an old version of our data channel code).
> >>
> >> I don't think a TCP connection can span over multiple 5-tuples - each
> TCP connection will be bound to one 5-tuple.
> >
> > I don't agree. SCTP can be tunneled over UDP, as we know, so why not
> TCP? The ports in such a tunnel scenario are just as unnecessary as in SCTP
> over UDP.
>
> We need to be clear about what we mean.
>
> When I say "TCP", I mean plain TCP :)
>
> If we talk about TCP-over-UDP, we should say "TCP-over-UDP" :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email