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

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jon,

thanks. I have put together the following draft agenda:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/agenda/agenda-96-sipbrandy

If somebody else have an agenda request, please let me know.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 09/07/2016 8:52 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> 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.