Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture

Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com> Wed, 12 June 2013 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.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 6234321F93C4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 50j6eGdItWmH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3DC21F91B7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r5CGTAZ0007537 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:29:11 GMT
Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5CGT9BQ026845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:29:10 GMT
Received: from abhmt108.oracle.com (abhmt108.oracle.com [141.146.116.60]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5CGT9Mh024632; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:29:09 GMT
Received: from [10.1.21.23] (/10.5.21.23) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:29:09 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_56605741-7CC2-46C1-9DC2-82E913F319CA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDY2Z_5_1uYJ1K_ZmrJB2a1-RE7V3aPqNHQg82DyagjCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:29:08 -0400
Message-Id: <2975A93F-44DA-4020-B4DE-42E7ED98C08F@oracle.com>
References: <CA+9kkMDnjCNXGV0GU7x6gbbZMf4WiEuVvCRY8_Fix5tmdOB-Kg@mail.gmail.com> <AD220324-EEE7-4800-8512-FD7BADA9EC34@oracle.com> <CA+9kkMDY2Z_5_1uYJ1K_ZmrJB2a1-RE7V3aPqNHQg82DyagjCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:29:22 -0000

On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>; wrote:
> 
> Oh excellent, then it's a "No Plan" for SRTP as well.  Cool.
> 
> Hi Hadriel,
> Actually this isn't correct.  The plan of record for this is DTLS/SRTP:
> If you think that plan isn't clear enough in the security architecture and security documents, 
> suggested text would be welcome.  The point of an SDES discussion wasn't to create an 
> initial plan, in other words, or event to discuss changing the existing plan, but to consider 
> whether other options were to be included.

What we had talked about back in IETF 83 (or some previous meeting) was whether DTLS-SRTP would be the only MTI key exchange, or whether SDES would also be MTI.
We did not come to consensus in IETF 83, and tabled it for more discussion.  Since then it has been put at the end of the agendas, resulting in us running out of time for it.  At the last IETF 86 or Boston interim, one of the WG Chairs (I don't remember who) said we'd have a virtual interim dedicated to cover it.  Now we don't.  Ergo, we don't have a plan.


> We haven't set an agenda for Berlin, but the obvious thing to do here is not to wait, but to kick of the discussion on the list with a draft proposing what you want to see; or, as I said below "Working group discussion on the point, and documents addressing it, are welcome at this point, if folks do want to re-open the topic in this venue. "

We've had a lot of discussions on the list about this over the past couple years.  I thought the general feeling was at this point we needed to discuss it live - either in person or on a con call - because it was hard to follow all the arguments in email.  Maybe that was just my feeling, but I could swear some other people said the same thing at the last IETF 86 meeting or Boston interim.

-hadriel