Re: [rtcweb] SRTP and "marketing"

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 7339F21F8BA8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 L5HRGKJVaENq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFBC21F8B99 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=1526; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1333029360; x=1334238960; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FEY69NKuk12V3JAplS4Ugrz2FON8US/VB0bemk6o2ao=; b=CBQm7PoFg61e9M56Nc18kRMPDx/GlGtF1c8Ww1y3W8/ERGRR7/JJTG1o gTRiJZQX4AtV9y9BWpd1jaqVZdfnhmbwTptfuAuhS8iq3xUUxaeLvF+/N 8K3FXpZRBUgQGzsv3wahZs4677wadNj2tcKcs7xgHMp6gSbU4d3Idpm8c o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAJtodE+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbAA6Cak+j1uBB4IJAQEBBAgKARcQNQoMAQMCCQ4BAgQBAQEnBxkjCgkIAgQTCxeHZ59SlzqKdIYrBI1rljyBaIJp
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,668,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="35628246"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2012 13:56:00 +0000
Received: from dwingWS (sjc-vpn4-676.cisco.com [10.21.82.164]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2TDtuoN020897; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:55:57 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Hadriel Kaplan'" <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
References: <4F72D6B3.40803@bbn.com> <4F72E453.7070204@alvestrand.no> <4F72EB53.5000409@bbn.com> <0bf301cd0d04$22d53200$687f9600$@com> <00052A1F-CE65-4A53-9B7D-261E1CC75426@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <00052A1F-CE65-4A53-9B7D-261E1CC75426@acmepacket.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:55:55 +0200
Message-ID: <032f01cd0db3$abeaeee0$03c0cca0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHNDS3wTtwICWEdGUmv8/XIx55mBJaBSx7w
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP and "marketing"
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 13:56:01 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:59 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Richard L. Barnes; Harald Alvestrand; <rtcweb@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP and "marketing"
> 
> 
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
> 
> > We do need a foundation upon which an authentication/identity
> > infrastructure can be built.  We know we need one.
> > That foundation is DTLS-SRTP, and not Security Descriptions.
> 
> Now you're starting to sound like a marketing guy.  ;)
> What's next: "we'll build more synergy and have a unified platform with
> DTLS-SRTP"?
> 
> But more seriously, I don't understand this "foundation" argument.
> We're going to have DTLS-SRTP.  No one's suggesting we don't have DTLS-
> SRTP.  All Browsers MUST implement DTLS-SRTP.  We'll have it for
> Browser-to-Browser, and for Browser-to-Gateway if the Gateway supports
> it.  We'll have the foundation.
> 
> Requiring it for Gateways would make sense if it offered some real
> advantage, or didn't have any disadvantages.  There don't appear to be
> real advantages, while we know of disadvantages.  And gateways have no
> real means of offering an end-to-end identity.  Why would you want to
> build a foundation on air?

Even without any sort of identity at all, DTLS-SRTP provides superior
media security compared with Security Descriptions -- even if one (or 
both) endpoints are gateways to RTP or are gateways to SDESC-SRTP.

-d