[rtcweb] #33: Section 5.5: SRTP/SDES guidance

"rtcweb issue tracker" <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org> Tue, 05 November 2013 00:19 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 932DD21E80A5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:19:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 na6PTRcC9wPO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F7521E8304 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34415 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1VdUMb-0001HI-Uo; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 01:19:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "rtcweb issue tracker" <trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
X-Trac-Project: rtcweb
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:19:21 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/33
Message-ID: <066.8331de585e9ba3cb788de1503915ecd5@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 33
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: ekr@rtfm.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20131105001924.99F7521E8304@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Resent-From: trac+rtcweb@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] #33: Section 5.5: SRTP/SDES guidance
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 05 Nov 2013 00:19:26 -0000

#33: Section 5.5: SRTP/SDES guidance

 [OPEN ISSUE:  What should the settings be here?  MUST?]
    Implementations MAY support SDES for media traffic for backward
    compatibility purposes.

 [BA] As I recall, the room consensus at IETF 87 was MUST NOT with respect
 to SRTP/SDES, no? Is that missing because the consensus in the room wasn't
 verified on the list, or some other reason?

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-rtcweb-
  bernard_aboba@hotmail.com          |  security-arch@tools.ietf.org
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  security-arch            |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/33>
rtcweb <http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/>