Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 20 June 2013 22:58 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 3D72921F9A80 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.823
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 IF0+L3bcjdqb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443A921F9A74 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id k10so71805wiv.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:21 -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=+KABUKOZNNo4bQIEE9rxE2vLeqQkdVHVPabju0l6H+k=; b=p4uvf7r4bKno5171VWKbBjMolFBrdjDC0lfy7hmMVCz/hK1UifxYfWsypHVx/yWQq3 7lfuQysEE5Be02cZ0q5OfNZyFEgtReXVffEs396u1xS2ONfUIFQSxSYcSkzyTwLXWCFQ W4FhFMUQn+a43RUCYTjjmLFf+tafv5xVJ3GYEudAfUagPzjwBrybUw94yxcOgTBCE0/2 sSXfWEv0y/ObONB0VxxhSFq+RIxFnadd3Ma26hecBTl+h97IoxVYBjfVIyBrDxfWfipF /Yco2mTeLZdcXpxb/jiYY+pTETTm8oiLo+oxmPqmEHaxN4idIVUiJ1gxLIYsAjwL+vZ5 lUCg==
X-Received: by 10.180.36.107 with SMTP id p11mr986004wij.31.1371769101230; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x13sm3601344wib.3.2013.06.20.15.58.19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hj3so68666wib.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.9.212 with SMTP id c20mr478488wib.65.1371769099259; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2E8D@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CA+9kkMDnjCNXGV0GU7x6gbbZMf4WiEuVvCRY8_Fix5tmdOB-Kg@mail.gmail.com> <AD220324-EEE7-4800-8512-FD7BADA9EC34@oracle.com> <CA+9kkMDY2Z_5_1uYJ1K_ZmrJB2a1-RE7V3aPqNHQg82DyagjCg@mail.gmail.com> <2975A93F-44DA-4020-B4DE-42E7ED98C08F@oracle.com> <51BAC9BC.6070708@ericsson.com> <94846970-4694-4EC8-AEFA-AEECEE0135AA@oracle.com> <51C02EE8.5070809@ericsson.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841A2C78AD@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAL02cgTFSbYSX7v3q37tsjzaPMshyyBroGWr=qmy-HGm82GJFg@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841A2C7EF8@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAL02cgQMkHu-NqEeScT2ObfknJ+3OjXi7Y=7rUJtqeu3CbewMQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E9D2A9F-3D8B-4480-A85D-320CF30FEAA6@oracle.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2D76@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAD5OKxvMGD=e3rHta9aLRAOAM022V0hzcp6nJbmG+GAxBohS6g@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115D2E8D@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:58:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxs6kbMRhK5S8XYywAbfcEKyBnmBw=7nAgKeLed8iGx-uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1879ce017e604df9de1d1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmbWt1JBf3F7G8nlxf70OxuUtPYybhsR8zzaIdZ7ArBz2FZdE7GJY1V6ZMcQuhbSF9B3C85
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
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, 20 Jun 2013 22:58:35 -0000

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Hutton, Andrew <
andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:

>  Using SRTP is always more secure than using plain RTP but again I think
> the problem to be solved is how the user is notified about the level of
> risk.
>
>
>
Please explain how SRTP is more secure the plain RTP when communicating
with plain HTTP server? I can decode either from a simple packet capture.
After all, you did say always...
_____________
Roman Shpount