Re: [rtcweb] state of libsrtp maintenance? (Re: SRTP not mandatory-to-use)

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 12 January 2012 16:19 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 B37E221F859A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:19:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, 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 7suvu1ec-CSg for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C766921F84F1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnr5 with SMTP id r5so1245507ggn.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.181.197 with SMTP id dy5mr4780043igc.13.1326385141832; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:19:01 -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 py9sm9464318igc.2.2012.01.12.08.18.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dajz8 with SMTP id z8so1573940daj.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:18:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.122.225 with SMTP id lv1mr9448328pbb.68.1326385136681; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.44.197 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:18:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBO0kw2BvhMzODuXoX5XSD2UrYwbQ3AnqiY-pAyiE8AmRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAErhfrwu322=HTS0JZhum9EGfb73KmYS6CU_KMESyzEWhtvg2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1_qMoHBb3K7rV=hG9EadqL=xn4KEdG0zdWnKZU9_TipQ@mail.gmail.com> <4AEFFC17-EF17-40F2-B83B-0B0CC44AD2C3@cisco.com> <CAKhHsXEes+Lf+uKdTrjXoy+3PMy2uNumNL-W-0s4_xRXW6FiZg@mail.gmail.com> <4F0CAC8C.8010203@wonderhamster.org> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C6538049202074ABD3A@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCF907@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfkejnU2rTe-FibUVxTrRS9SivkhGXB5eK+FhD8Vu6iTMA@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCF9FC@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfn07bS58B+4ZyzRTnO4LCpw1e96dnqpSM+TT1y3QG2Zwg@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCFBC1@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CAOJ7v-20+yL7r+_ODx_czHTiujXZZWESaZRB7MQjhvScg3RFtw@mail.gmail.com> <4F0DFD0B.2000009@jesup.org> <BLU152-W62B3148D9899099ED240D1939E0@phx.gbl> <4F0EA4BA.5040809@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxvB3J9g5Mq9vTH9WNqqsqSNunGXiXo6AgR6+ORZCeFcnA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO0kw2BvhMzODuXoX5XSD2UrYwbQ3AnqiY-pAyiE8AmRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:18:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxs8n8tDCaCT2Nb0osyxVEmRb-WsPHtEVX8qyYqyzy9Ggw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f64650be8414604b6571a70"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] state of libsrtp maintenance? (Re: 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, 12 Jan 2012 16:19:03 -0000

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> DTLS-SRTP was specifically designed so that one could put together a DTLS
> stack and an SRTP stack with minimal modifications to both (and no
> necessary
> modifications to the SRTP stack). In the case of OpenSSL and libsrtp, you
> do the OpenSSL handshake, then use a new interface to export the keys
> which you then push onto libsrtp using existing interfaces.
>
> My point is if you use OpenSSL crypto functions you can replace libsrtp
with a few hundred lines of code. It is almost easier then integrating with
libsrtp (and introduce another instance of unoptimized encryption and check
sum functions).
_____________
Roman Shpount