IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 11 March 2015 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
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 DE1021A887C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 TBouARSkItZM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (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 888A51A890E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbhl2 with SMTP id hl2so37941904igb.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=ycmxyplKvLcnu8L5jZ3yEXvkQhzNDmwTrtxMJKVetTA=; b=HED8fYowbWzotTBuL0Xh1Mg1D/cYyHojSU02CedCfv8SYmaFM1k3KFZ/dNSbkLBLmV bxIvUXiIHwrHqYkdHGwemFxW5LOjsEBXrxEvU9JQ8fMIE45mId/eq1Hjbq2rEJCHs8ld wF4EHy9GQWNikqtHeGTz+e3vybfmdsLYonWRIYiAixN3Y3hoBw2F2TZte3eyQhpKrZSy 2fgB+ukMADqidxWvnaeH+rxVauLX+7nph/6NneuQ2vyRxOpRqkbK+cPyQZz8v/z/grsI daWyYEO1jSV0J5MowMHBfXCPpf8sBS0iYJBLOrYmJFKAiNOMteeGM0ipJifM7/P21Xs6 9UXQ==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ycmxyplKvLcnu8L5jZ3yEXvkQhzNDmwTrtxMJKVetTA=; b=VDbYLZjtk0UlUOG/WucJn33Z2LC0ZUulRVTYhbd/jgOl9Quzc4LWhWY9/Gvsu+oLEn rtSr1AgIs7ixaNio4511mq6A+alGtaGy9kk0gcDBE3sfd0MNM+KZE6JVAXjC6n/QmF4J ddNVKEp8xALk6dSFL9mo5sc7e3p2VPPztEQ9ludppc9Rq6eMFSA9Iwx0mwO/9YG2JR38 Yl/yc/FTt/mk1NIX0yOCRgAF+n8JVONXAe0rPgt+QdpPdB3rIUc9iMuh5WmAcFKT2yUV t+8SmKrxZNcLKT5NvCXGWIQ+M9qibfnTWeHxiLa5azEI3tNHg0rcFq3iwbXm388oEbDB cTOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkn6No+oyUek52mDWSfprwIWLRCfVTXwqu5316Xf1ku3vpDIGPVyl0KJr6z/CuOR8skaCKJ
X-Received: by 10.42.123.75 with SMTP id q11mr43331286icr.87.1426088047884; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.64.42 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxs1grSqAG32mf__wtsjpo68jZmKonbd+EsJmYNsDHUbFQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:33:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3YypG1s9KXOCA+Fo58SuVuUk5-thcSc0k3N2j=4ZmJoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3011d8fb8363df051104ffe8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/EZNQi7SfyZeLU4qZ6s4lkcGf7EY>
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:34:11 -0000

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> I assume you mean SCTP-over-DTLS? Usage of "plain" SCTP with ICE is not
>> defined, as far as I know.
>>
>
> You are correct.
>
>
>>
>> > 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 t 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).

HTTP, on the other hand, would not meet criterion #1.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email