Re: [Sipbrandy] hello world (was re: New Version Notification for draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt)

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, do plan on having a presentation from me in Berlin, please. And I will have a bit of tutorial material for those who missed the previous DISPATCH discussion. 

Thanks!

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 9, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jon,
> 
> thanks for revising the draft. As you know, we will have a session in
> the upcoming IETF meeting in Berlin:
> 
>  18:30-19:30    Thursday Afternoon session III
> 
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/96/agenda.html
> 
> Would you or one of your co-authors be able to discuss this draft in
> that session? While I expect presentations to focus on open issues, as
> usual, this one could include more introductory material (motivation,
> rational, goals, etc.) since we are just starting this WG and we want
> everyone to be on the same page regarding what we are trying to do...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
>> On 09/07/2016 1:51 AM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> 
>> I just posted a new version of the RTPSEC draft, now branded for the
>> brand-new SIPBRANDY working group. For those just joining us, this
>> specification is intended to define best practices for SIP user agents
>> to keep media confidential, with special concern for the threat of
>> pervasive monitoring. As such, this is mostly an umbrella draft
>> collecting existing work and explaining how these pieces come together
>> to provide the needed properties. You can find the draft here:
>> 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt><https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-sipbrandy-rtpsec-00.txt
>> 
>> Notable changes from the previous (dispatch) version include the following:
>> 
>> - As we heard some interest in making sure this played well with
>> conferencing, there's now a mandate for perc-double, though not much
>> supporting text yet.
>> 
>> - There's now a mandate for ICE, and moreover for STUN consent
>> freshness, as we heard some concern about voice hammering and related
>> attacks.
>> 
>> - The draft now permits the use of self-signed keys to sign rfc4474bis
>> within a "STIR profile for media confidentiality", which also requires
>> that UAs implement the authentication and verification service roles of
>> STIR. That entailed a number of related behaviors.
>> 
>> - There's some tentative text about the interaction between rfc4916
>> connected identity, ICE, and rfc4474bis, though this clearly requires
>> some more thinking. For now I'm happy to just have some preliminary text
>> there.
>> 
>> - Perhaps most notably, the draft mandates support for DTLS-SRTP, and
>> makes support for other confidentiality mechanisms optional.
>> 
>> At this stage, I want to make sure we've captured the requirements
>> space, and that we're not missing anything in terms of behavior we need
>> to incorporate. But certainly we'd be happy to hear any other comments
>> about the draft.
>> 
>> Jon Peterson
>> Neustar, Inc.