Re: [rtcweb] SRTP/AVPF/TCP in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01

"Parthasarathi R" <> Thu, 03 October 2013 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1BB21F85BB for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DNEyKJzEHzz for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0C321E8128 for <>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 26A2886903C; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 17:09:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120823; t=1380820165; bh=2cOJjaQPitpVlncaWsNsxwdEUor39MZqxgLLQfU848I=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GqPLQHSkmHFzsKjEenC2iMjP/k36B+VVsMB++xldyMg5/l67fXf6YoQwknoHq2Tpo T/O7ZWm8OzxI6xrE2PN1+eYXYBH1EgMhO8S36ZXezf3KDmZ9QOWdyeTjDn7ULXRSJG UwAhfudFEJ7xFp9CvWc9KYzoaMLF8bgl/s/4zzVU=
From: Parthasarathi R <>
To: 'Harald Alvestrand' <>, 'Magnus Westerlund' <>
References: <006401cebf96$7db7a4f0$7926eed0$>, <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:39:13 +0530
Message-ID: <005c01cec05b$4c998710$e5cc9530$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005D_01CEC089.6651C310"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac7ATBJ0mqOuLxeeT3S3xu/d6dbirgACN1QA
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.524DA4C5.0005, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP/AVPF/TCP in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:29:08 -0000

Hi Harald/Magnus,


Thanks for the clarification.  Please clarify whether TCP/RTP/SAVPF will be
registered in IANA as separate MMUSIC specification or any another simple
mechanism exists to add IANA registry. 


I'm interested in seeing the usage of DTLS key exchange for SRTP within
TCP/RTP/SAVPF profile. Even though DTLS is designed for connectionless
protocol, I assume that it works with TCP (connection oriented) protocol as
well. The optimized version of TCP/RTP/SAVPF shall use TLS as a SRTP key
exchange mechanism. Please correct me in case I'm missing something.





From: Harald Alvestrand [] 
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 8:50 PM
To: Magnus Westerlund
Cc: Parthasarathi R;
Subject: Re: SV: [rtcweb] SRTP/AVPF/TCP in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01


On 10/03/2013 07:22 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

Yes you are missing something. The registry you pointed at are the one for
RTP profiles. The one containing the combinations with transport are SDP


For consistency's sake, shouldn't all the SDP parameters that contain "RTP"
also be listed in the RTP registry?

I'm thinking that -transport- may have to grow an IANA section that
registers TCP/RTP/SAVPF, and it needs to decide whether to register it in
one or both.

(Of course, the TCP/ prefix is only used in some of the examples in the RFC
defining RTP over TCP - as a matter of taste, I don't like having protocol
in the profile name, so would be happy not doing so if the SDP experts say
this is OK by the rules, but then I need to adjust the language to not use
the word "profile" in this place.)