Re: [rtcweb] Consensus call regarding media security

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 16A2121E820F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.363
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 WEB9ogJyjdZI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2BF21E813B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP064A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.63]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 4D27123F0430; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:31:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.55]) by MCHP064A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.63]) with mapi; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:31:36 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:31:34 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Consensus call regarding media security
Thread-Index: Ac0Nv+lVl70zE7EhSV2W7S2ypjY57wAAQ3lg
Message-ID: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31296C4CC98@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
References: <4F732531.2030208@ericsson.com> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31296C4CC7B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <CALiegfm-acB8vEJrC+TQwAX4a9UkE5TXcvsfb7XXPMW4SrNvBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfm-acB8vEJrC+TQwAX4a9UkE5TXcvsfb7XXPMW4SrNvBw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consensus call regarding media security
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, 29 Mar 2012 15:31:38 -0000

I would be happy with that.

Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
> Sent: 29 March 2012 17:23
> To: Hutton, Andrew
> Cc: Magnus Westerlund; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consensus call regarding media security
> 
> 2012/3/29 Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>:
> > I agree that there was clear consensus on mandating the use of SRTP
> but it was not clear to me what the consensus is regarding the use of
> SRTP with a null cipher. Does the statement "there was overwhelming
> consensus that all RTP packets SHALL be protected by SRTP" mean that
> the null cipher will not be allowed?
> 
> IMHO it's very easy:
> 
> - The JavaScript WebRTC API MUST NOT be able to set a null cipher
> (never).
> 
> - The browser MAY include an option in about://config ("SRTP: user
> null cipher for debugging purposes").
> 
> - Such an option is reverted (so dissabled) upon browser restart.
> 
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>