IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Fri, 07 October 2016 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 788CA129579 for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QtXXhA0j56GF for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6250129580 for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-e95069800000099a-9e-57f798a2a68d
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.78]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F9.F3.02458.2A897F75; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:44:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [100.94.11.43] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.319.2; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:44:13 +0200
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, sipbrandy@ietf.org
References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com>
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <ce0d5592-ef96-ab56-2a56-cb4713e5f99d@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 15:44:09 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7n+6iGd/DDR5+NLGY33ma3WLFulNM DkweS5b8ZPKYtfMJSwBTFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG1uNn2Qs+8VQ86uxgamDczNXFyMkhIWAi seD0NLYuRi4OIYH1jBIHHk9mhXBWMkocfPKVvYuRg0NYQF1iU0MCiCkiYCEx5VwsSK+QQInE lKn3mUBsNqDwllv3WUBsXgF7icffX7KC2CwCKhKbZi4Hs0UFYiT2z5rJDFEjKHFy5hOwek4B B4kvTW/YQWxmAQOJI4vmsELY8hLb385hhtilLbH8WQvLBEb+WUjaZyFpmYWkZQEj8ypG0eLU 4uLcdCMjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwOA7uOW31Q7Gg88dDzEKcDAq8fA+iPgWLsSaWFZcmXuI UYKDWUmE9/nU7+FCvCmJlVWpRfnxRaU5qcWHGKU5WJTEec1W3g8XEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2CyTJx cEo1MBoIXww3+GjMuTtCY2HOu1uVzM9jQyfdmx3SyRiXIGl3ucNwI0uJf5+z//HljNycaZ+v daVlywnukFBQ9pSfOXXth9pctYq/x8/rHzdeoa7Qf/j5rF1T7rgceXs0ymfKLa+JP4JmXMn7 8Ujval9A1JJQCcUltUF3a89+kp5e4cJ82Kf6aF4nuxJLcUaioRZzUXEiAN1/gO86AgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/Eg_wqEz5QN-5zzLpsX7PJeIXiTw>
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 12:44:23 -0000

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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email