[rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 08 September 2011 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@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 58F6321F8B74 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 2GUbe1NZTFQi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9237521F8B5D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c47ae000000b17-d5-4e686219ed8c
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FC.C0.02839.912686E4; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:35:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.250]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.125]) with mapi; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:35:05 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:35:04 +0200
Thread-Topic: AVPF [was: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
Thread-Index: AcxtrdxMz9T5EPlJRReppyAV+Xdn8AAQw9BA
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233E8554C@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <89177AB2-F721-47E4-8471-2180EDA10615@voxeo.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB34D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <496EE152-41F2-49AB-A136-05735FE5A9F9@voxeo.com><101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E540FE2.7020605@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106423F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net> <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F086B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E666926.8050705@skype.net> <43A0D702-1D1F-4B4E-B8E6-C9F1A06E3F8A@edvina.net> <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7020E64DC@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <E4EC1B17-0CC4-4F79-96DD-84E589FCC4F0@edvina.net> <4E67C3F7.7020304@jesup.org> <BE60FA11-8FFF-48E5-9F83-4D84A7FBE2BE@vidyo.com> <4E67F003.6000108@jesup.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E67F003.6000108@jesup.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
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, 08 Sep 2011 06:33:15 -0000

 
Hi,

>>>You could make forced-encryption the default, and allow the 
>>>application control over whether to allow it is turned off for 
>>>specific cases, like a PSTN call, or under the server's control.  
>>>Signalling is secure, so it could even use a direct 
>>>optional downgrade from SAVP* to AVP* (i.e.
>>>similar to the best-effort-strp draft)
>>This has implications for the parallel thread about the use 
>>of SDP offer/answer.
>>
>>The solution MMUSIC has standardized for best-effort SRTP 
>>is SDP CapNeg, RFC 5939.  Do we want to require CapNeg 
>>support in browsers?
> 
>Yeah, ok, I'm not going there.  :-)  It's probably not needed 
>for this use-case anyways.

The same question exists for AVPF, which has been suggested to be mandated.

Regards,

Christer