IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [siprec] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16: (with DISCUSS)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 27 May 2015 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2281A0338; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 imcOvXNvVMpW; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 5F2A01A01D5; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t4RKbZfs018166 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 May 2015 15:37:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <55662B0E.30301@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:37:34 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150526224118.4132.30843.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150526224118.4132.30843.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/siprec/3_LziDuq_s5yezkT2qiwZJwanxo>
Cc: siprec@ietf.org, draft-ietf-siprec-protocol.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-siprec-protocol@ietf.org, siprec-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-siprec-protocol.ad@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [siprec] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-siprec-protocol-16: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: siprec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Recording Working Group Discussion List <siprec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/siprec>, <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/siprec/>
List-Post: <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec>, <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 20:37:44 -0000

On 5/26/15 17:41, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> (2) 12.2: Why is a 2011 ([I-D.ietf-avt-srtp-ekt]) expired
> I-D ok as the method for supporting DTLS-SRTP for the CS,
> esp when DTLS-SRTP is our currently favoured method for
> handing WebRTC security? When is that going to be finished?
> On what basis is that an informative and not normative
> reference? And is that reference ever likely to be
> standardised?

I'm not commenting on SIPREC or how it chooses to handle RTP keying, as 
I'm not overly familiar with either. I'm only responding to the comment 
regarding EKT.

As has been pointed out, this citation should be 
draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-ekt, which is far more recent. EKT forms a 
cornerstone of the proposed solutions for the PERC work that's been 
discussed in DISPATCH recently. If the PERC work moves forward, it will 
almost certainly drive work around EKT, substantially increasing its 
chance of publication.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email