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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 14 June 2013 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 6980D21F9B42 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.755
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 pq3wxIxLg620 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0D421F9AF7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c11so435315qcv.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:16:59 -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=BGGWqOUuk7J9jDnQnUgUWXQciMyWDD4hMAbnl080ei4=; b=Dstwxs/Gf77Ryc6ElOemRTAJU7USYT+bsrxkgA6/z/YkljhCapQc2m2FLeju08QAKv q2+tYXJYF2XLADNG7W+XrjPWYtieuGfO/+yzBjjmfwnpAgf7PKfQgdVMe5XIMhdswC1J YFcR6wdLl1/z9y7Dh3/GXCEoENDq+aNis0GvlxKKXF61VlaVpN/VO+4QqMuLtl60XYZF ioqeajN9BfyMNBUjyhYC+qgsKTIoQuKRI0YkNs9FZsB0Z35abtUWNDyS9Oa5HL7hMn8u qEzM44RHOIzmiHzVKzf/G35RklD06lVa0UyTmML+rYMf14VtusLDHeWC2QTpJ5jpriK+ /dPw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.147.71 with SMTP id k7mr1237795qcv.129.1371230219285; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.67.65 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.67.65 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <94846970-4694-4EC8-AEFA-AEECEE0135AA@oracle.com>
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>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:16:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmpbfdBGvq2M65CTg5puoEGRwEcAWnGJ9wnG2__gdL6KA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae94ed80520611204df206a77
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk+b8+OsJYxD3EQb0wGSbtrr1CIzU2Ao583gFOFxHERjob/wSZFvrsr0HBENNngCwxnFXro
Cc: 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: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:17:04 -0000

I just remember that somebody wrote a draft explaining why DTLS offers NO
more security than SDES. AFAIR the draft was just ignored. I'm also
surprised that there is no need to discuss this subject.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
El 14/06/2013 18:59, "Hadriel Kaplan" <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com> escribió:

>
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > However, this time we have proposed a time and requested people to
> > submit agenda items to that meeting. Don't hold us WG chairs responsible
> > because you in the WG aren't providing input into what should be
> discussed.
>
> You can't be serious.
> There was exactly ONE email asking for agenda items, here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07668.html
> It was sent on May 30th.  It gave a generous 6 days to respond.  Luckily
> no one ever goes on vacation for longer than 5 days.
> Instead, two people sent a response on June 10th, a tremendous 11 days
> after the request.  Outrageous!  That's a almost twice as long as they were
> given!
>
> Thank goodness the chairs detected this monstrous breach of procedure, and
> thwarted the attempts of anarchy!  I mean if people are allowed to respond
> to emails so tardily, how can we be expected to get things accomplished as
> quickly as they've so far been in this WG?!?
>
> Sure, an interim for this topic has been waiting for many months if not a
> whole year, and now that people didn't respond in 6 days but took instead
> 11 days the topic will be delayed indefinitely yet again... but that's no
> excuse for blatantly flaunting the rules!
>
> Personally I saw the email on May 30th, and assumed Oscar and Dan would
> respond to you for agenda time.  I assumed that if no one had submitted
> agenda items to you, that the WG Chairs would send out an email warning
> about that, or perhaps even directly email the people who they expected to
> submit agenda items.
>
>
> > If you want to discuss this, write a draft describing how how your
> > additional keying is to be integrated, what the pro and cons of it. That
> > will enable direct discussion of a proposal. The WG clearly are
> > opinionated on this matter, but apparently don't have energy to produce
> > proposals.
>
> There *are* drafts.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-rtcweb-sdes-problems-00
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohlsson-rtcweb-sdes-support-01
> There are even powerpoint slides, sent to the chairs the last time this
> meeting almost happened but didn't.
>
> I think the problem must be that those things weren't signed in
> triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public
> enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and
> recycled as firelighters.
>
> -hadriel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>