Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question
Andy Hutton <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 13 October 2016 09:32 UTC
Return-Path: <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.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 752EB129706 for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 SxOymH3hf7yp for <sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2C6D1294B3 for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id l13so175117157itl.1 for <sipbrandy@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ckv/JCg0ekB3a0wqAUM408+Asj5WztsTefnq+fOgEt4=; b=bPuhOjykg9oDEy7A+UKRQgTtnOpyL3jluAXDBBkQbL6KUb49ywm18OD88/nEeoLzwk YYJ3bkTrvR2GM1CfsZ1CTTLTcqcxmkvZDJH91g4VUG70hL9+qTV5ja4o8ePu+gY3yksO OaMVJfw/HYIa42g5N01bEENzlDQQjYUYHcTOCbZ51AH4uHe4I9Gd13gXof32h4VBhYW7 1t3tRrE6ihbwiyrBWDkI4ORGJpzZ2PsHPBESC9MqvtVXKjUNf7jkXgtA4TssGE2pXUZf yOI4itPsqjaSyBDlcVbSVnUi8qFpTTDSvyoNsQzUjupNZi8XsQwww7LLJg8hsjEGebPi BSKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ckv/JCg0ekB3a0wqAUM408+Asj5WztsTefnq+fOgEt4=; b=Nii0DeKm5EHbAEAEF3PGP36gu48nol308dpIZmkzJSSXYpL9E5vndP71cFSTcqWOWC DpjKzpDc2x3g8MKvZOMoTWoWmXIMKcMxq+hbECoMXxXrhZfsnnRTyulQloXTopyOmhE2 8q0yA8SWqtQfpcCRPPxwdrdYfbrbzQXBWBWJVmSkf0O3egcbSlmu9FcVX6PeoQz3f5qS l4S271/PgST0SqoUTBO/0Xu1Hhvt6Z4d7yj3Ntw7GNY9IJe64S65MKeKmB+ORv/vhDfM tPuVNnKzh0KohGVDRRl/sFbmRDzaeY0ZPWqBtoHqiPYnsjNVANVyNK9JL62DTasImTXD tkPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rn8710+bpvC3Np8A0Iq1SJJLddoZMi/fGaWd0vv4LiZnIMlOvxuHwXMQORmUfamFJuNbc1x7YY9YysHCA==
X-Received: by 10.36.175.20 with SMTP id t20mr6521089ite.77.1476351172903; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.142.203 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E449C6E6-51C4-4B62-883D-6C4373A872CD@nostrum.com>
References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> <ce0d5592-ef96-ab56-2a56-cb4713e5f99d@ericsson.com> <CAB7PXwRLbzdrd00kmz0QUDQGr5OuRPec6-qSj0P=Th5c7cP3fw@mail.gmail.com> <faa15961-b5a3-d6dd-7845-ca6e28f2556c@ericsson.com> <CAB7PXwQ-cLZoDm2J2iPQoc4NfCoH8ePXo5QurbPhnNRYmywdQw@mail.gmail.com> <SN2PR03MB2350300E1448FA26F1A5820EB2DD0@SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <D6020214-3697-4529-B556-2CC686AC2DAD@nostrum.com> <E449C6E6-51C4-4B62-883D-6C4373A872CD@nostrum.com>
From: Andy Hutton <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:32:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB7PXwRxWBXZRh6oan1PKhRNJ1DQEsi_hw_Yyd-K=sHhsrwUZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045dac84398653053ebbcb64"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipbrandy/gcPVJY5i0YB9DDDcEpbUZOJ514Y>
Cc: "sipbrandy@ietf.org" <sipbrandy@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
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: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:32:56 -0000
Yes I agree. Probably also points us further towards stating that the answer must/should contain SAVP when OSRTP is negotiated. Regards Andy On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > (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> 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>> > > > 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> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sipbrandy mailing list > > 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 > >
- [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Ben Campbell
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Andy Hutton
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Andy Hutton
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Ben Campbell
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Ben Campbell
- Re: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Andy Hutton