IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 30 April 2013 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.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 05AA021F9A50 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 w8CBJsCVkvQK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5835221F984B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-64.lucent.com [135.5.2.64]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r3UJSAso020920 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:28:11 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r3UJS7T8028457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:28:10 -0400
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.10.44]) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.48]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:28:08 -0400
From: "Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
Thread-Index: AQHOQ19D/Cgh8/1Iw0eB7cqfjULVv5jtM2PAgAFh+gCAAEqnYIAAg/mA//++3cA=
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:28:08 +0000
Message-ID: <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F3BB9E658@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <BLU402-EAS17255F45B0904B070F0D43093B00@phx.gbl> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F3BB9C0F6@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <517F658E.8010204@ericsson.com> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F3BB9D535@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <CABcZeBMJvrERsYG8jnYT1tOunvHhmLvQAvL4qsSP8Ei8VuZ3BQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMJvrERsYG8jnYT1tOunvHhmLvQAvL4qsSP8Ei8VuZ3BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F3BB9E658US70UWXCHMBA05z_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:28:25 -0000

Ekr,
Thanks for your response.  I really just wanted to raise awareness of this issue, and to get clarification of what "SDES for WebRTC" really means.  "Impractical" and "crazy talk" in this case are other ways of saying that it's more work than someone wants to do, but I respect that.  Most of the benefit of SDES keying for WebRTC comes from addressing audio and video media.

Richard

From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:52 PM
To: Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
Cc: Salvatore Loreto; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Ejzak, Richard P (Richard) <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
Hi Salvatore,
"are you proposing that when/if we will eventually use SDES we have to assure that the key exchanged
is the same key used by the DTLS session, on top of which runs Datachannel?" is a reasonable interpretation of what I am proposing, although I would have described this as my "preference" rather than a concrete proposal.  We could mix SDES for voice/video with DTLS for DataChannels in these scenarios, but an all-SDES approach (for keying) would be more efficient.

I know that this option is not currently defined, although it does seem technically feasible (which is why I asked to ekr to comment).

I don't think this is really practical. It would require defining a new crypto protocol
to carry the SCTP.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email