IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Consensus call regarding media security

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 28 March 2012 16:42 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 866EA21E80F3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.824
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152, 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 hndOxBWfmO1N for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D008F21E80D5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so978756ghb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=QJTkmB7M6NSb88KJ+2CkkwCNLLb2YJNv0gj6tx54xyw=; b=XmFqkW3bRFNmu2TybEXOcROWeHpvLBj3pyJyOjr+xpTqkSof++WFcRohPiXY4+2FYC DCpu2u6kI/Hg4aQeVg7JUFN/6AciLWw9O14aaLJm4WIlXlJ8JtKMHqTFDJrVVqtkX5Nd NYQ7BScUOpF5pjUd6sNxNF9GMKwskqID0DqgdA4Te6PPvOjXDhYhyAoVu+gnCveT5jdf /ulurpl9kQdKOgYSNAQ/zf4g+8vhPWOgiJIYbJTzmJ8UFb80DcCATugu6+FATlhRvqyN Vl+tdjkxgtvusgqlQDo0wcod2yQ/Qiv8B7gvYbJAGBiGri8tUV2SDFxlEIxOqha3rYii +HTw==
Received: by 10.236.73.195 with SMTP id v43mr4835975yhd.78.1332952972443; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g49sm9150010yhk.20.2012.03.28.09.42.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so973444vbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.90.178 with SMTP id bx18mr11824856vdb.123.1332952971261; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.192.195 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7DDA6692-2CA2-414A-B592-ED73E440AB08@acmepacket.com>
References: <4F732531.2030208@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxs6NHha2egNSTumEaHYJ0bB6qu_nfshmBM6dntx2n49HQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F733492.9040601@alcatel-lucent.com> <CAD5OKxv8PhhwmjaDHqet1NBmJ+8ndKBc7p7fjC2vogE1wXT=sg@mail.gmail.com> <7DDA6692-2CA2-414A-B592-ED73E440AB08@acmepacket.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:42:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsKLw_50pJEfE58bTxRO+QVW6esmAOEDvAmDdBGuNBYew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3071cffa5ab77104bc504c43"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7R0GMIRVOYn/1Z1o1n8MewD23GDjR4pFqx5sRyAIU4rO9WWizzqVV6L3IypBVJHnwZtTi
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:42:53 -0000

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>wrote:

>
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>
> > On the related note, where is SRTP profile with NULL encoding defined? I
> have seen quite a few SRTP implementations but not a single one of them
> supported NULL codec in any of its profiles.
>
> The RFC for SRTP itself included NULL cipher mode - see RFC 3711.
> Note that it is even mandatory to implement, but not mandatory to use - so
> we can specify in RTCWeb it MUST NOT be used, I believe.
>
>
What was always getting me confused is that RFC 4568 provided no way to
specify that NULL cipher mode should be used. All crypto suites there are
AES CM or F8 based. This might be irrelevant if we are going to use DTLS
for cipher negotiation.

_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email