IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question

Andy Hutton <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 11 October 2016 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B301E129480 for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4AxgUiwQGBay for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209221293FF for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k64so18320300itb.0 for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Tz12UjGOdSPneNyH/qxypLCgTxftzCzycHMybgFU8OA=; b=DOvLtDOe7tjkRIk3tcXdqhrBeWCc/9ok9B1w93//DXB/MYtuFN6ZScraFjesEw1bkU mYsGPwEp80nWIFspuUBFPr5eCXfPfuYpxc4L3fAecCj09GHMU5a3Xz/2e/vL6AD8So0Q 1YE03/6lO2gIG+LPq5Fi2H1GDOjFeTNME1h7k+61d545rsWGF9qGUJgWSo/TiP5oVofG Z1mPV2k5kVYsp4LYAstbMdG/HqmY8DlW7ezCn83D/fIGgNva6NjYMK3sun/UvJogsO6+ VIjROlB5gY4H6VO4IH7ycLcLr9Zmmh6SMCivABTb816qEml3hy8Gy3aTFA1P45VsyM3Y seag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Tz12UjGOdSPneNyH/qxypLCgTxftzCzycHMybgFU8OA=; b=k9sqoT9CLOgOColudHyWAA3j1atM3Bwa7i2eMs7RHhbDqzoIIdGqPxGPJMV38Lu/QY ShiETeasmkwr/mNtIdBxEXMMRoVGIPWc2zpCRRgUVCiSeL8IXI4l8lObo1Kej7pNe/Pq +n0wciBjXin8Cm8ch8bNL9mXCwejCgRO235XvGuOvZMFIE9jud9U9zkkYDw8GXY/gq4l krT4s+8rsgcvoGtkghDgfFERmHrgWNumMOxU/Nvwa7ZNQdRsE3spgwXQVOi2sOk2bqvV W17M+TtyTdQWj3I4rrE7EBhNbqeGLZckKzxqlAoydlbpeOKaWqMg4HQXEWktPZ6iOk8e yFTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rm5gTwiTajZ4DuniOTPgL5bXe9dJIHrPOq4NPI2S390kQwzaU8xOY+HkzidrsFUqa8LXh2f6KGiRMOQTA==
X-Received: by 10.36.92.196 with SMTP id q187mr5659958itb.33.1476190598446; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.142.203 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ce0d5592-ef96-ab56-2a56-cb4713e5f99d@ericsson.com>
References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> <ce0d5592-ef96-ab56-2a56-cb4713e5f99d@ericsson.com>
From: Andy Hutton <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:56:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB7PXwRLbzdrd00kmz0QUDQGr5OuRPec6-qSj0P=Th5c7cP3fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114457b43dc447053e9668aa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/2Hz18xqLjTiwhqOi3q-3bKtX7Hw>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, sipbrandy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question
X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list <sipbrandy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipbrandy/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipbrandy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>, <mailto:sipbrandy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:56:42 -0000

I am not sure what this issue is here I thought we were heading towards
consensus during IETF96 to make the OSRTP draft PS and get the AD's to fix
the charter.

We discussed the possibility of splitting the draft and taking a small
draft to MMUSIC with the normative parts but I think we had consensus that
this did not make sense and we should just fix the charter,

Regards
Andy

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo <
Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> please, note that as you all know the SIPBRANDY WG is chartered not to
> produce PS specs. So, if we do not provide Ben with some arguments for
> making this draft PS, it will *not* be a PS. Comments?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipbrandy/charter/
>
> > The working group is not expected to define new protocols or modify
> > existing ones; rather it will define practices for using existing
> > protocols.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 23/09/2016 8:58 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > for context, Ben's question relates to the following paragraph in the
> > minutes of the last SIPBRANDY session:
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy
> >
> >> The group agreed on advancing the osrtp draft as Proposed
> >> Standard. However, the SIPBRANDY WG is not chartered to develop new
> >> protocol mechanisms. Ben, the resposible area director for the
> >> SIPBRANDY WG, will look into this and get back to the group with a
> >> final plan. In the meantime, the working assumption is that the
> >> intended status of the osrtp draft will be Proposed Standard.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Gonzalo
> >
> > On 23/09/2016 3:28 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In the discussions about what status OSRTP should be, I was under the
> >> impression that people thought that the draft modified (or violated)
> >> some normative statement about using encryption with AVP rather than
> >> SAVP. Can anyone point me to the specifics?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Ben.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Sipbrandy mailing list
> >> Sipbrandy@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sipbrandy mailing list
> Sipbrandy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email