Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question

(Oops, I sent that before I was finished.)

This seems to require OSRTP to update 4568. Do people agree?

Thanks!

Ben.

On 12 Oct 2016, at 9:42, Ben Campbell wrote:

> That's what I was looking for. Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> On 12 Oct 2016, at 9:15, Asveren, Tolga wrote:
>
>> 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 mailing list
>> Sipbrandy@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy