IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Fri, 23 September 2016 05:58 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 216D712B161 for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:58:24 -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 OTmoxVNmuP3g for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (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 5153A12B172 for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b87ff70000000cb2-a7-57e4c47b6819
Received: from ESESSHC018.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.72]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BC.91.03250.B74C4E75; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:58:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [131.160.126.219] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:58:18 +0200
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, sipbrandy@ietf.org
References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com>
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 08:58:18 +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: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7h27NkSfhBu/OqVvM7zzNbrFi3Skm ByaPJUt+MnnM2vmEJYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvj64vVbAU3OCq2NtxlamDsYO9i5OSQEDCR uDr3GnMXIxeHkMB6RonOhu3sEM5aRomLLx6ydDFycAgLqEtsakgAMUUELCSmnIsF6RUSsJNY 8OEiG4jNBhTecus+C4jNK2Av0b7yF5jNIqAqcevPL1YQW1QgRmL/rJnMEDWCEidnPgGbzglU v2abPkiYWcBA4siiOawQtrzE9rdzmCFWaUssf9bCMoGRfxaS7llIWmYhaVnAyLyKUbQ4tTgp N93ISC+1KDO5uDg/Ty8vtWQTIzD0Dm75bbCD8eVzx0OMAhyMSjy8Dx4/DhdiTSwrrsw9xCjB wawkwht28Em4EG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcV6zlffDhQTSE0tSs1NTC1KLYLJMHJxS DYwmCU9vn9Duy/52+J9veF6w/ME8n0u3Ls67/Pw6e3iIpJBNtG5EG0N3otBiJoa6sIuHJbZN jv6hmV1Y2L/85KwrKR+2KM04In62wrvT06Hh9JM117Iu3uifZ+Y6/bqBUtDUpuNFq17tv/2l a/mNt8mdE9vsdBczuRst1/mR1NnXPl8r45po4hIlluKMREMt5qLiRADyk6lGOQIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/fEhP3s4_Jd0LstKxxTP_fb-4O7s>
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, 23 Sep 2016 05:58:24 -0000

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