Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question
"Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com> Wed, 12 October 2016 14:15 UTC
Return-Path: <tasveren@sonusnet.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 71AAF12944D for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sonusnetworks.onmicrosoft.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 I8CTtcXx5Qpd for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0084.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3AE5129521 for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=SonusNetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-sonusnet-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=uTRgIg9sRLaeybGC/H5xxC/5KURRHQ81A7jy72wlPIc=; b=HdOLxwZv6UUlfZywzq3xqwBS/5mBEHQ6LoHkcq2Y7PLDcMYN2vjjMZzai9QV7saSzSn+dkXaQMIkbk46kEvxI3HFiwxbocQwMdlOOhPPnmmiijUkeDcQmJN1hvjH0Jinr+ULnh0VUIT0zHfgd22ia3Bzf4I/LpFMDahnG7T0be8=
Received: from SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.210.141) by SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.210.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.659.11; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:15:34 +0000
Received: from SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.210.141]) by SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.210.141]) with mapi id 15.01.0659.020; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:15:34 +0000
From: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
To: Andy Hutton <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question
Thread-Index: AQHSFTFvyCZR6UJFcEuPr4bYQGUhwKCGlJMAgBZyCICABlLbN4AAWPyAgAFI9yA=
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:15:33 +0000
Message-ID: <SN2PR03MB2350300E1448FA26F1A5820EB2DD0@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> <ce0d5592-ef96-ab56-2a56-cb4713e5f99d@ericsson.com> <CAB7PXwRLbzdrd00kmz0QUDQGr5OuRPec6-qSj0P=Th5c7cP3fw@mail.gmail.com> <faa15961-b5a3-d6dd-7845-ca6e28f2556c@ericsson.com> <CAB7PXwQ-cLZoDm2J2iPQoc4NfCoH8ePXo5QurbPhnNRYmywdQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB7PXwQ-cLZoDm2J2iPQoc4NfCoH8ePXo5QurbPhnNRYmywdQw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=tasveren@sonusnet.com;
x-originating-ip: [73.29.18.75]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bc746043-a23e-42da-2178-08d3f2aa3b32
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN2PR03MB2350; 6:hJ4TyRMQajWLAvJn4OjiFjiM+G+YyZlBsUYuwUgLV+CBJIJGYzk9W32AlfRNVVWVXiIxXf2EgF91RBf4B5TpTrwQ0eL20PWQvEPeX3lMt7/dWs/lhMO07Hzb4iYyja0Rpbipp0oDcUQfOOSJSyI3h/EjYWTf1YIM/JSFQsCb2g84nEOd3ZB5P+L1ttmjhPzfz5hSyfw//Se9F69uDMF2X/xrN2H0R23yCRu8NEO2Vj3qURynf3RFQjnoc+5/Q+NyE7ko0yMJj+zkSFIyvuZ3yU/qluS0XSxK/TI0GCoiGwS23XtPdJbPpDyFei9kgsPu; 5:1qjJ78YJ7Sp2wTeOCyTdXU9/6UksEJMKTeQf3qPSSZOuKk9dnohxeyEsLIBc3B3eLiVWO+tsc7PzUV8KMyBsm//DkoRpv4ta5iW1EAb9dA7BrStbIDxlNd7svjkbZ8SnPXaIvAx+6xXiZ/EZ/FhafQ==; 24:PjUrxrDiChw4BM3ttoCZ+KrHsYAd61pxXRWsLjE9YI4IuMz2Fa9Imv7D/TEj5AESSEmFS6Rkh436JgBYICU58kdlJ8TJ5rATO+NbW/x6w9o=; 7:HsuaWeROiA/tFJ1lk3KHdOIdrPltGzfb2YjMTov645BKoINTveD+W3TqzKMNphR11YZm6CO+cx4qJdfJ44oMylN5B5FJZPlA7NJRWPMX5fvTnu8DiT3GrqJM/xd0q4eqWgLh2KQP1KQ+V+X5lV1TcrwEXiLhjMbwG2ulGiZ9LDhN0YyQjFBNJnrxjrb0IpuLvTF6WeF2p4zvEsCqtx2YC6AO+dNGHfKMz3OX4o1mjN/LHroCmMrsdddDRrwP0Sd6TO6YimKgPnhdzzdhy1wUyTQPqX9cuCTq0p9B/xTvwv7xJDRzuGXMTZnjrQGga7GyspaROQQ8Jdy7TlI7Zp/TPeXp6MqfNSIFacvR RnXL33E=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN2PR03MB2350A7D0CE1A7AADB9989DDDB2DD0@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(37575265505322)(120809045254105)(192374486261705)(100405760836317)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350;
x-forefront-prvs: 0093C80C01
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(199003)(189002)(24454002)(377454003)(55674003)(189998001)(76576001)(9686002)(66066001)(5660300001)(101416001)(77096005)(106116001)(105586002)(99286002)(7906003)(19625215002)(81166006)(106356001)(122556002)(19609705001)(19580405001)(790700001)(586003)(19580395003)(102836003)(6116002)(86362001)(3660700001)(3846002)(2950100002)(97736004)(5001770100001)(7696004)(8936002)(54356999)(11100500001)(87936001)(76176999)(2906002)(4326007)(93886004)(19300405004)(50986999)(7846002)(10400500002)(2900100001)(3280700002)(81156014)(15975445007)(92566002)(68736007)(19617315012)(16236675004)(74316002)(8676002)(5002640100001)(7736002)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350; H:SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: sonusnet.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_SN2PR03MB2350300E1448FA26F1A5820EB2DD0SN2PR03MB2350namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: sonusnet.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Oct 2016 14:15:33.9073 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 29a671dc-ed7e-4a54-b1e5-8da1eb495dc3
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN2PR03MB2350
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/EGaJ_2LeeG2E0gZaGkoMp99YNs0>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "sipbrandy@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:15:56 -0000
I think the concern was about the following from RFC4568 6: “SRTP security descriptions MUST only be used with the SRTP transport (e.g., "RTP/SAVP" or "RTP/SAVPF")” Having said that, I am completely in favor of progressing this practically very useful draft ASAP. Thanks, Tolga From: Sipbrandy [mailto:sipbrandy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Hutton Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:37 PM To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; sipbrandy@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question I am not aware that the OSRTP draft violates any normative statements about using encryption with AVP although there was a discussion at IETF96 about whether the SDP Answer should contain SAVP if the answerer recognised and makes use of the a=crypto. This is why an update to the OSRTP draft has been suggested such that the answer may contain AVP or SAVP which I think we should accept and if we had to choose between AVP or SAVP in the answer I think I would fall on the SAVP side. Regards Andy On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com<mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hi Andy, if you do not see any issue here, then you sure won't have any trouble responding to Ben's original question below, which is what the ADs are actually after, right? ;-) Thanks! Cheers, Gonzalo On 11/10/2016 3:56 PM, Andy Hutton wrote: > 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<mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com<mailto: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/ > <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 > <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<mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org> <mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org<mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org>> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sipbrandy mailing list > Sipbrandy@ietf.org<mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org> <mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org<mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy> > >
- [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Ben Campbell
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Andy Hutton
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Andy Hutton
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Ben Campbell
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Ben Campbell
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Andy Hutton