Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Fri, 26 April 2013 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 AEAF921F97D3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 i1AgJPAPRrtm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1606321F97D1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 433BB22E253; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <517A0E5C.6010505@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:58:36 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3523D45E-8724-4CE4-BDAD-68F738D9A130@iii.ca>
References: <3FA2E46D-C98E-4FC0-9F1D-AD595A861CE1@iii.ca> <517A0E5C.6010505@alvestrand.no>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
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: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:58:45 -0000

Uh, rereading that paragraph, the word "support" got used a lot of times - my apologies. 

We had previously deferred the WG discussion about SDP Security Descriptions but we would like to try and resolve that issue. What we are asking for is for people to suggest what they want the drafts to say on this topic and why. Exactly the sort of discussion we have seen from the people that replied to this thread was the type of thing we where hoping for. 

Answers inline below ...


On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> On 04/25/2013 05:57 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> The working groups committed some time ago to have a further discussion on whether SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568 aka SDES) would be usable as a keying method for WebRTC.  As we prepare for that discussion, we'd like to have expressions of interest or support for that approach which indicate the general outlines of support proposed.  If you wish to make such an expression of support, please send it to the chairs or the list.
> 
> Sorry, I got lost in the levels of support.
> 
> Are you asking for indications of support for the idea of supporting SDES (in which case you should also be asking for indications of support for the idea of NOT supporting SDES),

yes, glad to hear about both of these. I'd view "MUST NOT ever do SDES or even talk about. If you receive SDP with SDES in in the browser MUST reformat the hard drive and send a report to the EFF" as one level of "support" we could choose. (OK not one I would support but you get the idea)  

> or are you asking for indications of support for the idea of having a discussion about supporting SDES?

No, we did not mean to ask that, we were just presumptively starting the discussion. If no one wants to talk about it I assumed there would be silence on the list or push back on that. It's currently listed as an open issues in the WG draft. 

> 
>            Harald
>