Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP

"Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)" <> Fri, 04 May 2012 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DA021F8637 for <>; Thu, 3 May 2012 23:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XSO66AaAL2UP for <>; Thu, 3 May 2012 23:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9AA21F8634 for <>; Thu, 3 May 2012 23:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so1665900wgb.13 for <>; Thu, 03 May 2012 23:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=NrT7rnYVr/clDwcHw3yGc+jkqQgE/BEIH2F8g5CmeGk=; b=KBqjlOziuD/9lHJhYIs1jQpH1wFtrp/+AxIwxOI01oco1ZpK7T8ZuMjlNW1DQTaXZb hxRV/nVTtaeVREkm8i9UYAqanlJVvuyXF24qTtOucNkn1bKvYpEYT78YC1uWRFvDhhz7 plC8CJe0A8JQ6aGfz8G+7iAONwGwEb3bQw2QZ6kgvpkMqwdXyaIDwYrAGghHrhndyPGx h9TvEpgePPp5oAn3z3tAuviAYokeFBTN4+g2YOShOWo/8Ul3lNaRwcfMmx5NfY1Ao+N1 5AesR0hSPa/HcEctJIISyP2CQwQOUp9V6Owd9ttuFN2TaLo4m3u02+MgRkv4kBRdlBjI koIw==
Received: by with SMTP id q7mr9316198wif.11.1336113007306; Thu, 03 May 2012 23:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonyvaiop13.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id ca3sm2528591wib.6.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 03 May 2012 23:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Fabio Pietrosanti <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 08:30:04 +0200
From: "Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <BLU169-DS251D322307BC173FD221AE932F0@phx.gbl> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlOIB2pTpuI58EidYFM28ZUq5agJzg7u3ro1abnmaIXljssrPplmjCdJp4P7AfmFOH2mprJ
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Final plea about SRTP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 06:30:09 -0000

On 5/4/12 8:21 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi Roman,
> In my role as a WG chair I have to say that the decision to make SRTP
> mandatory to use for WebRTC had a very strong consensus behind it. Yes,
> there are some few individuals like yourself that are on the rough side
> of this decision.
> My personal opinion is that the discussion so far in this thread has
> raised most of the issues with supporting both. I think the bid-down
> problem is one of the largest for most people. I also see a great
> benefit with always using SRTP, in that we will get rid of RTP profile
> negotiation. There will be no need to support any other RTP profile than

So next main points to be defined, as far as i understand, is by
consensus working on key exchange methods that could be more or less:
- Use only DTLS-SRTP (as it is)
- Use only DTLS-SRTP-EKT

Other than this i would also suggest to suggest discussing about the
"Authentication" of the call, that currently with DTLS-SRTP can be:
- Based on idP (external identity provide)
- Unauthorized

I would also introduce the ability to verify the DTLS-SRTP call directly
and without intermediary (no trusted third party like idP), with methods
such as SAS.

That's the only way to achieve the "end-to-end security" property that
DTLS-SRTP would like to bring in WebRTC standard.

Otherwise DTLS-SRTP will provide "end-to-end encryption with end-to-site
security" but NO end-to-end security.