[rtcweb] Additional keying mechanisms for media security for discussion

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 28 March 2012 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 9734B21F8850 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.972, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 XtUbzAX07ovj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7AE21F843F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7b76ae0000063d8-60-4f73408b56f1
Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E9.11.25560.B80437F4; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:47:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:47:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4F734089.9040208@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:47:05 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [rtcweb] Additional keying mechanisms for media security for discussion
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 16:47:10 -0000

WG,

In addition to the consensus in todays meeting (see other email) there
was no consensus established about if there should be additional keying
mechanisms.

We did a consensus call if in addition to DTLS-SRTP:

a) Security Description SHALL be mandatory to also implement

b) Security Description SHALL NOT be mandatory to also implement

This consensus call was clearly tied. We will continue to discuss this
with the goal to make a decision at a later point.

We chairs also deferred the question if EKT is a mechanism that shall or
be recommended to be supported. So please discuss this also.

Regards

Magnus Westerlund
WG chair