Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question

[Andy Hutton <[e-mail]>]

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 <
[e-mail]> 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
> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > 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
> >     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>
> >     >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Sipbrandy mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>
> >
> >
>