IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Fri, 26 April 2013 04:03 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 EABF221F8EEA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
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 2VuGIOfKGJdy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E36021F8E76 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [10.10.155.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07632230005 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5179FC8C.3080600@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 21:03:24 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <3FA2E46D-C98E-4FC0-9F1D-AD595A861CE1@iii.ca> <20130425202238.74EF321F96A5@ietfa.amsl.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48416281FDB@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F3BB8FAF7@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <CABkgnnWQZ+5aP0pQRB5Wx9v7pViw4dtd2Hrz6Zwn2XooSkwtvA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWQZ+5aP0pQRB5Wx9v7pViw4dtd2Hrz6Zwn2XooSkwtvA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 04:03:25 -0000

On 4/25/2013 3:11 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 25 April 2013 14:55, Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
> <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>> I also agree that we should support SDES in addition to DTLS-SRTP.
>>
>> This raises a further question about SCTP/DTLS for DataChannels.  It seems that if we support SDES-SRTP, don't we also need to provide an SDES keying mechanism for DataChannels?  Ekr: What is needed to realize this?
> Data channels use the DTLS record layer, so using SDES for those would
> be harder than I think you want.
>
> Data channels can continue to use DTLS even though media is encrypted
> using keys provided by security descriptions.

Or, even better, data channels can just not be used in this case.

Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email