Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question

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