From nobody Mon Oct 3 06:24:35 2016 Return-Path: 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 B3E3C12B248 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 06:24:34 -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 5CVa3BtL3LmF for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 06:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (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 18E3412B2DF for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 06:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id i202so39632786ioi.2 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 06:24:26 -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=J1Q4z25Qi6ddX0MMpa6SN58BP2xwWYWFfMlRfQln+Xk=; b=v/o8fMnaGYtPiIyApdc+gDh3pmfdoHmHrsQRFqaFKnR8x8gyIhkVzFXC/XrfEDZETe CFimvo81d+kViwu5UMQeDDkG8GGrMdqwdso+E+HblF+/LEUeWzd4i7mnBYxkFpN4b5IZ dWrHuBiVPwXWvDlElZmxMqMqFNNaGSlDkRrosIPKr7f8zOtNS5jSEvdyO/uZUlGsSTid qit6wHdGdCHfuc/m3zrF1uAX8Hx2YFwaLgCYRn4ugUtfGdMKS+MXtIo8bwF+o03K4FTE ytHxV33HvTNSgjxvGz1hFNGOrZSSKiEwVj2GT0wAxMDG7l+2XXJnmyCmmz3Ofar+6I+v fOOg== 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=J1Q4z25Qi6ddX0MMpa6SN58BP2xwWYWFfMlRfQln+Xk=; b=QUrZZgJujbWFs+AwJ8R0A5/pK4di+zQcarVK716Y6GXnPRO6EQD/YvyZqW/kFF6vsL gtTBA//zuFcCLHoOwtd50U4/s8T9UwJT8hE3FltggVfTK0pQ9WdJEId4EzyHBwtG2G2V ApgFjlXMckxe3vmmAE5mHX+rd0vn+7Vg7V8xSn5dTN+ZfyMfed44oahjXUpbU6XdboOX cwWjVe1xrl1VnoUxND8VZVYVvf3Oh1U0m0WEw80iKb7MKsOXHG/3oUz2ZnPlqoEv0pwU yFg/scsoAm6ZQe5dBKjjIHQxwQLW2tMAtaCi6dU7KuOLGkYeNbfOETCqbp8QHFvsl2So HAuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkHwWji5Whpd9Cwg0LjmtaVDqvrUg/7NPDiqi67m29igK9OUT/n4TK+Yd9eNb9Sn5GPQRiFsrKN925pIQ== X-Received: by 10.107.144.86 with SMTP id s83mr22170392iod.97.1475501066288; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 06:24:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.144.152 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 06:24:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andy Hutton Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:24:25 +0100 Message-ID: To: Alan Johnston Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c055842ec02ea053df5dcbe Archived-At: Cc: sipbrandy@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sipbrandy] Open Issue in draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-00 - AVP offer/SAVP answer X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:24:35 -0000 --94eb2c055842ec02ea053df5dcbe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I strongly support Alan's suggested new text as I know there are existing implementations that use SAVP in such an answer. Regards Andy On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Alan Johnston wrote: > All, > > To move the Opportunistic SRTP draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp forward, it > would be good to get some discussion on one open issue. > > Open Issue: AVP offer/SAVP answer. > > Currently, the draft does not discuss this case. Strictly speaking, an > SDP offer with AVP profile receiving an SDP answer with an SAVP profile > violates offer answer. However, some implementations support this. For > example, the IMTC security document has this text: > > =E2=80=9CAn offerer that prefers the use of SRTP SHOULD be lenient when r= eceiving > an answer. It SHOULD interpret either: 1) RTP/AVP with the crypto > attribute or 2) RTP/SAVP with the crypto attribute as indicating that the > answerer is capable of supporting, and does support, SRTP encryption.=E2= =80=9D > > It would be good if OSRTP allowed this, although I don't think it should > be the normal behavior. Here is a proposed text change in Section 3: > > OLD: > > If the SDP answer contains SRTP keying attributes, then that particula= r > SRTP key management approach is followed and SRTP media is used for > this session. > > NEW: > > If the SDP answer contains the AVP profile with SRTP keying attributes > or the > SAVP profile with SRTP keying attributes, then that particular SRTP ke= y > management > approach is followed and SRTP media is used for this session. > > If there are other open issues in the draft, please raise them as this is > the only issue known to the authors. > > - Alan - > > _______________________________________________ > Sipbrandy mailing list > Sipbrandy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > > --94eb2c055842ec02ea053df5dcbe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I strongly support Alan's suggeste= d new text as I know there are existing implementations that use SAVP in su= ch an answer.

Regards
Andy


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 a= t 12:23 AM, Alan Johnston <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
All,

To move the Opportunistic SRTP draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp forward,= it would be good to get some discussion on one open issue.

<= /div>
Open Issue: AVP offer/SAVP answer.

Curre= ntly, the draft does not discuss this case.=C2=A0 Strictly speaking, an SDP= offer with AVP profile receiving an SDP answer with an SAVP profile violat= es offer answer.=C2=A0 However, some implementations support this.=C2=A0 Fo= r example, the IMTC security document has this text:

=E2=80=9CAn offerer that prefers the use of SRTP SHOULD be lenient when = receiving an answer.=C2=A0 It SHOULD interpret either: 1) RTP/AVP with the = crypto attribute or 2) RTP/SAVP with the crypto attribute as indicating tha= t the answerer is capable of supporting, and does support, SRTP encryption.= =E2=80=9D

It would be good if OSRTP allowed th= is, although I don't think it should be the normal behavior.=C2=A0 Here= is a proposed text change in Section 3:

OLD:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0If the SDP answer contains SRTP keyi= ng attributes, then that particular
=C2=A0 =C2=A0SRTP key managem= ent approach is followed and SRTP media is used for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0= this session.

NEW:

=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0If the SDP answer contains the AVP profile with SRTP keyi= ng attributes or the=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0SAVP profile with SRTP ke= ying attributes,=C2=A0then that particular SRTP key management=C2=A0
<= div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0approach is followed and SRTP media is used for this sessi= on. =C2=A0

If there are other open issues in= the draft, please raise them as this is the only issue known to the author= s.

- Alan -

_______________________________________________
Sipbrandy mailing list
Sipbrandy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy<= /a>


--94eb2c055842ec02ea053df5dcbe-- From nobody Fri Oct 7 05:44:24 2016 Return-Path: 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 788CA129579 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:44:23 -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 QtXXhA0j56GF for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (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 D6250129580 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:44:20 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-e95069800000099a-9e-57f798a2a68d Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.78]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F9.F3.02458.2A897F75; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:44:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [100.94.11.43] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.319.2; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 14:44:13 +0200 To: Ben Campbell , References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 15:44:09 +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: <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7n+6iGd/DDR5+NLGY33ma3WLFulNM DkweS5b8ZPKYtfMJSwBTFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG1uNn2Qs+8VQ86uxgamDczNXFyMkhIWAi seD0NLYuRi4OIYH1jBIHHk9mhXBWMkocfPKVvYuRg0NYQF1iU0MCiCkiYCEx5VwsSK+QQInE lKn3mUBsNqDwllv3WUBsXgF7icffX7KC2CwCKhKbZi4Hs0UFYiT2z5rJDFEjKHFy5hOwek4B B4kvTW/YQWxmAQOJI4vmsELY8hLb385hhtilLbH8WQvLBEb+WUjaZyFpmYWkZQEj8ypG0eLU 4uLcdCMjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwOA7uOW31Q7Gg88dDzEKcDAq8fA+iPgWLsSaWFZcmXuI UYKDWUmE9/nU7+FCvCmJlVWpRfnxRaU5qcWHGKU5WJTEec1W3g8XEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2CyTJx cEo1MBoIXww3+GjMuTtCY2HOu1uVzM9jQyfdmx3SyRiXIGl3ucNwI0uJf5+z//HljNycaZ+v daVlywnukFBQ9pSfOXXth9pctYq/x8/rHzdeoa7Qf/j5rF1T7rgceXs0ymfKLa+JP4JmXMn7 8Ujval9A1JJQCcUltUF3a89+kp5e4cJ82Kf6aF4nuxJLcUaioRZzUXEiAN1/gO86AgAA Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 12:44:23 -0000 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/ > 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 > >> 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 > From nobody Tue Oct 11 05:56:43 2016 Return-Path: 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 B301E129480 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:41 -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 4AxgUiwQGBay for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (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 209221293FF for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k64so18320300itb.0 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:39 -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=Tz12UjGOdSPneNyH/qxypLCgTxftzCzycHMybgFU8OA=; b=DOvLtDOe7tjkRIk3tcXdqhrBeWCc/9ok9B1w93//DXB/MYtuFN6ZScraFjesEw1bkU mYsGPwEp80nWIFspuUBFPr5eCXfPfuYpxc4L3fAecCj09GHMU5a3Xz/2e/vL6AD8So0Q 1YE03/6lO2gIG+LPq5Fi2H1GDOjFeTNME1h7k+61d545rsWGF9qGUJgWSo/TiP5oVofG Z1mPV2k5kVYsp4LYAstbMdG/HqmY8DlW7ezCn83D/fIGgNva6NjYMK3sun/UvJogsO6+ VIjROlB5gY4H6VO4IH7ycLcLr9Zmmh6SMCivABTb816qEml3hy8Gy3aTFA1P45VsyM3Y seag== 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=Tz12UjGOdSPneNyH/qxypLCgTxftzCzycHMybgFU8OA=; b=k9sqoT9CLOgOColudHyWAA3j1atM3Bwa7i2eMs7RHhbDqzoIIdGqPxGPJMV38Lu/QY ShiETeasmkwr/mNtIdBxEXMMRoVGIPWc2zpCRRgUVCiSeL8IXI4l8lObo1Kej7pNe/Pq +n0wciBjXin8Cm8ch8bNL9mXCwejCgRO235XvGuOvZMFIE9jud9U9zkkYDw8GXY/gq4l krT4s+8rsgcvoGtkghDgfFERmHrgWNumMOxU/Nvwa7ZNQdRsE3spgwXQVOi2sOk2bqvV W17M+TtyTdQWj3I4rrE7EBhNbqeGLZckKzxqlAoydlbpeOKaWqMg4HQXEWktPZ6iOk8e yFTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rm5gTwiTajZ4DuniOTPgL5bXe9dJIHrPOq4NPI2S390kQwzaU8xOY+HkzidrsFUqa8LXh2f6KGiRMOQTA== X-Received: by 10.36.92.196 with SMTP id q187mr5659958itb.33.1476190598446; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.142.203 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 05:56:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> From: Andy Hutton Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:56:37 +0100 Message-ID: To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114457b43dc447053e9668aa Archived-At: Cc: Ben Campbell , sipbrandy@ietf.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:56:42 -0000 --001a114457b43dc447053e9668aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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> 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/ > > > 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 > > > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sipbrandy mailing list > Sipbrandy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > --001a114457b43dc447053e9668aa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am not sure what this issue is here I thought we were he= ading towards consensus during IETF96 to make the OSRTP draft PS and get th= e AD's to fix the charter.

We discussed the possibil= ity of splitting the draft and taking a small draft to MMUSIC with the norm= ative parts but I think we had consensus that this did not make sense and w= e should just fix the charter,

Regards
A= ndy

On= Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Cama= rillo@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/cha= rter/

> 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/proce= edings/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 ne= w
>> 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 violate= d)
>> some normative statement about using encryption with AVP rather th= an
>> SAVP. Can anyone point me to the specifics?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sipbrandy mailing list
>> Sipbrandy@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/s= ipbrandy
>

_______________________________________________
Sipbrandy mailing list
Sipbrandy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy<= /a>

--001a114457b43dc447053e9668aa-- From nobody Tue Oct 11 06:18:00 2016 Return-Path: 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 13895129477 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 06:17:59 -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 tiSLxQ1i4Jk4 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 06:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (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 C7B1712953B for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 06:17:56 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-14bff7000000793b-b2-57fce6829e51 Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.69]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CC.5B.31035.286ECF75; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:17:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [100.94.10.76] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.319.2; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:17:53 +0200 To: Andy Hutton References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> From: Gonzalo Camarillo Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:17:52 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7q27zsz/hBnv+8FlcWreVyWJ+52l2 ixXrTjE5MHvsnHWX3WPJkp9MHrN2PmEJYI7isklJzcksSy3St0vgyji5+RNrwTzJiv/fprM2 MLYIdzFyckgImEjc+PuevYuRi0NIYD2jxKTWZWwgCSGBVYwSm4+HdDFycAgLqEtsakgACYsI aEu8m7KDFaL+I6PEvcetrCAJZgELiR+LXjCD2GxA9pZb91lAbF4Be4kppx6zgcxhEVCVWL1I HiQsKhAjsX/WTGaIEkGJkzOfgJVzCgRK3N97G6ycWUBTYv0ufYjp8hLb385hhrhMW2L5sxaW CYwCs5B0z0LomIWkYwEj8ypG0eLU4qTcdCNjvdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwCA9uOW36g7Gy28c DzEKcDAq8fAqXP8dLsSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmEt/72n3Ah3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLEri vGYr74cLCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbBZJk4OKUaGDk66+9s3t9Ynq73wlyXhVfxuaD1EmNfY81rz94F ZbHfe17ptYHpLuOPmvbD8x5a2nMclm4TCnFuO7s6rCZl68dl7NuW3Z8jrzHx0LM5L9uMLhdt drvwNzUywOzoDp8EjsMCrMvSotfIfMz+8W9jx4QYy4Lbb5qf7l8cEWAy4yCDosSZBM65Fkos xRmJhlrMRcWJAHrjo8dOAgAA Archived-At: Cc: Ben Campbell , sipbrandy@ietf.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:17:59 -0000 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 > > > 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/ > > > > 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 > > > > >> 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sipbrandy mailing list > Sipbrandy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > > > From nobody Tue Oct 11 11:36:51 2016 Return-Path: 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 A0E5A129583 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:36:49 -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 ESxaadCKZUpr for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 16ADE129569 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id i202so34327541ioi.2 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:36:47 -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=7vVYUrYzn5waNaE9M3DuPrKls6LIdFLIJJzcBlvjwz4=; b=zmuFruK3PNg7gJmimQqCSIkoYQ+Jdnd5YEgz2jeILJ0UVqOOHa0yxa8hQbPzoXwLSQ Ckhz1wzLC+cedLFgUnl8+e2ujzNxUBIJH5UA0EcXVOH7dMQ7ESY2izFFNFBgMRSeInEy DlzrzCAWndJXJFyf9gmo6fQ43UQaxhx0eH1plyv1KauhKPT5oWp3f2Z6CKHne8vM9Oiu aq8oHNMkMu6XpKjMsuvSDJOi9W+DWTAiOTQfIq5AHkVWoPzfGqqcuGnWlAs8F3ohOB4N TnaArhfEr+pmhY6e5LHuTiSByApYQK6EhlBvuF4s4MZ+tqYJxTJSl1ac/wLlgXY6H7Al GU7w== 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=7vVYUrYzn5waNaE9M3DuPrKls6LIdFLIJJzcBlvjwz4=; b=RMZb2nI4WSmZ5h/MwBl97hhiqdzLMgU0A+IqUIOrz37leg1HPxEkYrdhavrTNKaHDv JlAvvziNwN85UJWZTGXnEpDUE9OWuVe5hlfS+0c273cCa7XuUcb1xnk1i0paaU0JqKR1 Ypabtdj11QVtOG7d2XTCinzK8R6Jj3PlI3cM1cZZqX9WLp+A+BVv/G7cFOoznSihFBN2 6H+nevR3vYfQ1XOkyBEmwlISSW3mDtUPGyxG7MgoZV5GwOkpo37tQqSeKzoomX4TBPMg yLGRhw2wKr+6N3wBkwnxV8AsKnXh5PKOyQo+jNOCwUON7X567PfmZlkkb7Ac6QyxD64o +p2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkcQNAlMvFayTynfjgxb4iR0r9hLEtJp/xcpvAgDA5bC+HKmXv1OJA3x72nqLuOqKoLItppNT55+rPOug== X-Received: by 10.107.131.213 with SMTP id n82mr7172972ioi.125.1476211006481; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:36:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.142.203 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> From: Andy Hutton Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 19:36:45 +0100 Message-ID: To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ec50ca7b180053e9b287c Archived-At: Cc: Ben Campbell , sipbrandy@ietf.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:36:49 -0000 --001a113ec50ca7b180053e9b287c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sipbrandy mailing list > > Sipbrandy@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > > > > > > > --001a113ec50ca7b180053e9b287c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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=3Dcrypto. =C2=A0

This= is why an update to the OSRTP draft has been suggested such that the answe= r may contain AVP or SAVP which I think we should accept and if we had to c= hoose between AVP or SAVP in the answer I think I would fall on the SAVP si= de.

Regards
Andy


On Tue, Oct 11= , 2016 at 2:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@erics= son.com> wrote:
Hi Andy,
if you do not see any issue here, then you sure won't have any trouble<= br> responding to Ben's original question below, which is what the ADs are<= br> 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 toward= s
> 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<= br> > 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.C= amarillo@ericsson.com <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>>
> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0All,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0please, note that as you all know the SIPBRANDY WG = is chartered not to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0produce PS specs. So, if we do not provide Ben with= some arguments for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0making this draft PS, it will *not* be a PS. Commen= ts?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.o= rg/wg/sipbrandy/charter/
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://datatracker.ie= tf.org/wg/sipbrandy/charter/>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> The working group is not expected to define ne= w protocols or modify
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> existing ones; rather it will define practices= for using existing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> protocols.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Thanks,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Gonzalo
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 23/09/2016 8:58 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Hi,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> for context, Ben's question relates to the= following paragraph in the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> minutes of the last SIPBRANDY session:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> https:/= /www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://= www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy><= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> The group agreed on advancing the osrtp dr= aft as Proposed
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Standard. However, the SIPBRANDY WG is not= chartered to develop new
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> protocol mechanisms. Ben, the resposible a= rea director for the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> SIPBRANDY WG, will look into this and get = back to the group with a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> final plan. In the meantime, the working a= ssumption is that the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> intended status of the osrtp draft will be= Proposed Standard.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Cheers,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Gonzalo
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> On 23/09/2016 3:28 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Hi,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> In the discussions about what status OSRTP= should be, I was under the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> impression that people thought that the dr= aft modified (or violated)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> some normative statement about using encry= ption with AVP rather than
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> SAVP. Can anyone point me to the specifics= ?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Thanks!
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Ben.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> _____________________________________= __________
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Sipbrandy mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Sipbrandy@ietf.org <mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://= www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0______________________________________________= _
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Sipbrandy mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Sipbra= ndy@ietf.org <mailto:Sipbrandy= @ietf.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/mailman/= listinfo/sipbrandy
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.ietf.org/mail= man/listinfo/sipbrandy>
>
>

--001a113ec50ca7b180053e9b287c-- From nobody Wed Oct 12 07:15:58 2016 Return-Path: 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 71AAF12944D for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:15:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sonusnetworks.onmicrosoft.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 I8CTtcXx5Qpd for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0084.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3AE5129521 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:15:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=SonusNetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-sonusnet-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=uTRgIg9sRLaeybGC/H5xxC/5KURRHQ81A7jy72wlPIc=; b=HdOLxwZv6UUlfZywzq3xqwBS/5mBEHQ6LoHkcq2Y7PLDcMYN2vjjMZzai9QV7saSzSn+dkXaQMIkbk46kEvxI3HFiwxbocQwMdlOOhPPnmmiijUkeDcQmJN1hvjH0Jinr+ULnh0VUIT0zHfgd22ia3Bzf4I/LpFMDahnG7T0be8= Received: from SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.210.141) by SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.210.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.659.11; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:15:34 +0000 Received: from SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.210.141]) by SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.210.141]) with mapi id 15.01.0659.020; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:15:34 +0000 From: "Asveren, Tolga" To: Andy Hutton , Gonzalo Camarillo Thread-Topic: [Sipbrandy] OSRTP Question Thread-Index: AQHSFTFvyCZR6UJFcEuPr4bYQGUhwKCGlJMAgBZyCICABlLbN4AAWPyAgAFI9yA= Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:15:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=tasveren@sonusnet.com; x-originating-ip: [73.29.18.75] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bc746043-a23e-42da-2178-08d3f2aa3b32 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN2PR03MB2350; 6:hJ4TyRMQajWLAvJn4OjiFjiM+G+YyZlBsUYuwUgLV+CBJIJGYzk9W32AlfRNVVWVXiIxXf2EgF91RBf4B5TpTrwQ0eL20PWQvEPeX3lMt7/dWs/lhMO07Hzb4iYyja0Rpbipp0oDcUQfOOSJSyI3h/EjYWTf1YIM/JSFQsCb2g84nEOd3ZB5P+L1ttmjhPzfz5hSyfw//Se9F69uDMF2X/xrN2H0R23yCRu8NEO2Vj3qURynf3RFQjnoc+5/Q+NyE7ko0yMJj+zkSFIyvuZ3yU/qluS0XSxK/TI0GCoiGwS23XtPdJbPpDyFei9kgsPu; 5:1qjJ78YJ7Sp2wTeOCyTdXU9/6UksEJMKTeQf3qPSSZOuKk9dnohxeyEsLIBc3B3eLiVWO+tsc7PzUV8KMyBsm//DkoRpv4ta5iW1EAb9dA7BrStbIDxlNd7svjkbZ8SnPXaIvAx+6xXiZ/EZ/FhafQ==; 24:PjUrxrDiChw4BM3ttoCZ+KrHsYAd61pxXRWsLjE9YI4IuMz2Fa9Imv7D/TEj5AESSEmFS6Rkh436JgBYICU58kdlJ8TJ5rATO+NbW/x6w9o=; 7:HsuaWeROiA/tFJ1lk3KHdOIdrPltGzfb2YjMTov645BKoINTveD+W3TqzKMNphR11YZm6CO+cx4qJdfJ44oMylN5B5FJZPlA7NJRWPMX5fvTnu8DiT3GrqJM/xd0q4eqWgLh2KQP1KQ+V+X5lV1TcrwEXiLhjMbwG2ulGiZ9LDhN0YyQjFBNJnrxjrb0IpuLvTF6WeF2p4zvEsCqtx2YC6AO+dNGHfKMz3OX4o1mjN/LHroCmMrsdddDRrwP0Sd6TO6YimKgPnhdzzdhy1wUyTQPqX9cuCTq0p9B/xTvwv7xJDRzuGXMTZnjrQGga7GyspaROQQ8Jdy7TlI7Zp/TPeXp6MqfNSIFacvR RnXL33E= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(37575265505322)(120809045254105)(192374486261705)(100405760836317)(21748063052155); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350; x-forefront-prvs: 0093C80C01 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(199003)(189002)(24454002)(377454003)(55674003)(189998001)(76576001)(9686002)(66066001)(5660300001)(101416001)(77096005)(106116001)(105586002)(99286002)(7906003)(19625215002)(81166006)(106356001)(122556002)(19609705001)(19580405001)(790700001)(586003)(19580395003)(102836003)(6116002)(86362001)(3660700001)(3846002)(2950100002)(97736004)(5001770100001)(7696004)(8936002)(54356999)(11100500001)(87936001)(76176999)(2906002)(4326007)(93886004)(19300405004)(50986999)(7846002)(10400500002)(2900100001)(3280700002)(81156014)(15975445007)(92566002)(68736007)(19617315012)(16236675004)(74316002)(8676002)(5002640100001)(7736002)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN2PR03MB2350; H:SN2PR03MB2350.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: sonusnet.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_SN2PR03MB2350300E1448FA26F1A5820EB2DD0SN2PR03MB2350namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: sonusnet.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Oct 2016 14:15:33.9073 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 29a671dc-ed7e-4a54-b1e5-8da1eb495dc3 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN2PR03MB2350 Archived-At: Cc: Ben Campbell , "sipbrandy@ietf.org" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:15:56 -0000 --_000_SN2PR03MB2350300E1448FA26F1A5820EB2DD0SN2PR03MB2350namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSB0aGluayB0aGUgY29uY2VybiB3YXMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBmcm9tIFJGQzQ1Njgg NjoNCuKAnFNSVFAgc2VjdXJpdHkgZGVzY3JpcHRpb25zIE1VU1Qgb25seSBiZSB1c2VkIHdpdGgg dGhlIFNSVFAgdHJhbnNwb3J0IChlLmcuLCAiUlRQL1NBVlAiIG9yICJSVFAvU0FWUEYiKeKAnQ0K DQpIYXZpbmcgc2FpZCB0aGF0LCBJIGFtIGNvbXBsZXRlbHkgaW4gZmF2b3Igb2YgcHJvZ3Jlc3Np bmcgdGhpcyBwcmFjdGljYWxseSB2ZXJ5IHVzZWZ1bCBkcmFmdCBBU0FQLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQpU b2xnYQ0KDQoNCkZyb206IFNpcGJyYW5keSBbbWFpbHRvOnNpcGJyYW5keS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYu b3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgQW5keSBIdXR0b24NClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIE9jdG9iZXIgMTEs IDIwMTYgMjozNyBQTQ0KVG86IEdvbnphbG8gQ2FtYXJpbGxvIDxHb256YWxvLkNhbWFyaWxsb0Bl cmljc3Nvbi5jb20+DQpDYzogQmVuIENhbXBiZWxsIDxiZW5Abm9zdHJ1bS5jb20+OyBzaXBicmFu ZHlAaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbU2lwYnJhbmR5XSBPU1JUUCBRdWVzdGlvbg0KDQpJ IGFtIG5vdCBhd2FyZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBPU1JUUCBkcmFmdCB2aW9sYXRlcyBhbnkgbm9ybWF0aXZl IHN0YXRlbWVudHMgYWJvdXQgdXNpbmcgZW5jcnlwdGlvbiB3aXRoIEFWUCBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGVy ZSB3YXMgYSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGF0IElFVEY5NiBhYm91dCB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBTRFAgQW5zd2Vy IHNob3VsZCBjb250YWluIFNBVlAgaWYgdGhlIGFuc3dlcmVyIHJlY29nbmlzZWQgYW5kIG1ha2Vz IHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgYT1jcnlwdG8uDQoNClRoaXMgaXMgd2h5IGFuIHVwZGF0ZSB0byB0aGUgT1NS VFAgZHJhZnQgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VnZ2VzdGVkIHN1Y2ggdGhhdCB0aGUgYW5zd2VyIG1heSBjb250 YWluIEFWUCBvciBTQVZQIHdoaWNoIEkgdGhpbmsgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGFjY2VwdCBhbmQgaWYgd2Ug aGFkIHRvIGNob29zZSBiZXR3ZWVuIEFWUCBvciBTQVZQIGluIHRoZSBhbnN3ZXIgSSB0aGluayBJ IHdvdWxkIGZhbGwgb24gdGhlIFNBVlAgc2lkZS4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcw0KQW5keQ0KDQoNCk9uIFR1 ZSwgT2N0IDExLCAyMDE2IGF0IDI6MTcgUE0sIEdvbnphbG8gQ2FtYXJpbGxvIDxHb256YWxvLkNh bWFyaWxsb0Blcmljc3Nvbi5jb208bWFpbHRvOkdvbnphbG8uQ2FtYXJpbGxvQGVyaWNzc29uLmNv bT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KSGkgQW5keSwNCg0KaWYgeW91IGRvIG5vdCBzZWUgYW55IGlzc3VlIGhlcmUs IHRoZW4geW91IHN1cmUgd29uJ3QgaGF2ZSBhbnkgdHJvdWJsZQ0KcmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byBCZW4n cyBvcmlnaW5hbCBxdWVzdGlvbiBiZWxvdywgd2hpY2ggaXMgd2hhdCB0aGUgQURzIGFyZQ0KYWN0 dWFsbHkgYWZ0ZXIsIHJpZ2h0PyA7LSkgVGhhbmtzIQ0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQoNCkdvbnphbG8NCg0K T24gMTEvMTAvMjAxNiAzOjU2IFBNLCBBbmR5IEh1dHRvbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gSSBhbSBub3Qgc3Vy ZSB3aGF0IHRoaXMgaXNzdWUgaXMgaGVyZSBJIHRob3VnaHQgd2Ugd2VyZSBoZWFkaW5nIHRvd2Fy ZHMNCj4gY29uc2Vuc3VzIGR1cmluZyBJRVRGOTYgdG8gbWFrZSB0aGUgT1NSVFAgZHJhZnQgUFMg YW5kIGdldCB0aGUgQUQncyB0bw0KPiBmaXggdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIuDQo+DQo+IFdlIGRpc2N1c3Nl ZCB0aGUgcG9zc2liaWxpdHkgb2Ygc3BsaXR0aW5nIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBhbmQgdGFraW5nIGEgc21h bGwNCj4gZHJhZnQgdG8gTU1VU0lDIHdpdGggdGhlIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBwYXJ0cyBidXQgSSB0aGlu ayB3ZSBoYWQgY29uc2Vuc3VzDQo+IHRoYXQgdGhpcyBkaWQgbm90IG1ha2Ugc2Vuc2UgYW5kIHdl IHNob3VsZCBqdXN0IGZpeCB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciwNCj4NCj4gUmVnYXJkcw0KPiBBbmR5DQo+DQo+ IE9uIEZyaSwgT2N0IDcsIDIwMTYgYXQgMTo0NCBQTSwgR29uemFsbyBDYW1hcmlsbG8NCj4gPEdv bnphbG8uQ2FtYXJpbGxvQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86R29uemFsby5DYW1hcmlsbG9AZXJp Y3Nzb24uY29tPiA8bWFpbHRvOkdvbnphbG8uQ2FtYXJpbGxvQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86 R29uemFsby5DYW1hcmlsbG9AZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPj4+DQo+IHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPiAgICAgQWxs LA0KPg0KPiAgICAgcGxlYXNlLCBub3RlIHRoYXQgYXMgeW91IGFsbCBrbm93IHRoZSBTSVBCUkFO RFkgV0cgaXMgY2hhcnRlcmVkIG5vdCB0bw0KPiAgICAgcHJvZHVjZSBQUyBzcGVjcy4gU28sIGlm IHdlIGRvIG5vdCBwcm92aWRlIEJlbiB3aXRoIHNvbWUgYXJndW1lbnRzIGZvcg0KPiAgICAgbWFr aW5nIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgUFMsIGl0IHdpbGwgKm5vdCogYmUgYSBQUy4gQ29tbWVudHM/DQo+DQo+ ICAgICBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL3dnL3NpcGJyYW5keS9jaGFydGVyLw0K PiAgICAgPGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvd2cvc2lwYnJhbmR5L2NoYXJ0ZXIv Pg0KPg0KPiAgICAgPiBUaGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBpcyBub3QgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gZGVmaW5l IG5ldyBwcm90b2NvbHMgb3IgbW9kaWZ5DQo+ICAgICA+IGV4aXN0aW5nIG9uZXM7IHJhdGhlciBp dCB3aWxsIGRlZmluZSBwcmFjdGljZXMgZm9yIHVzaW5nIGV4aXN0aW5nDQo+ICAgICA+IHByb3Rv Y29scy4NCj4NCj4gICAgIFRoYW5rcywNCj4NCj4gICAgIEdvbnphbG8NCj4NCj4gICAgIE9uIDIz LzA5LzIwMTYgODo1OCBBTSwgR29uemFsbyBDYW1hcmlsbG8gd3JvdGU6DQo+ICAgICA+IEhpLA0K PiAgICAgPg0KPiAgICAgPiBmb3IgY29udGV4dCwgQmVuJ3MgcXVlc3Rpb24gcmVsYXRlcyB0byB0 aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHBhcmFncmFwaCBpbiB0aGUNCj4gICAgID4gbWludXRlcyBvZiB0aGUgbGFz dCBTSVBCUkFORFkgc2Vzc2lvbjoNCj4gICAgID4NCj4gICAgID4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvcHJvY2VlZGluZ3MvOTYvbWludXRlcy9taW51dGVzLTk2LXNpcGJyYW5keQ0KPiAgICAgPGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3Byb2NlZWRpbmdzLzk2L21pbnV0ZXMvbWludXRlcy05Ni1zaXBi cmFuZHk+DQo+ICAgICA+DQo+ICAgICA+PiBUaGUgZ3JvdXAgYWdyZWVkIG9uIGFkdmFuY2luZyB0 aGUgb3NydHAgZHJhZnQgYXMgUHJvcG9zZWQNCj4gICAgID4+IFN0YW5kYXJkLiBIb3dldmVyLCB0 aGUgU0lQQlJBTkRZIFdHIGlzIG5vdCBjaGFydGVyZWQgdG8gZGV2ZWxvcCBuZXcNCj4gICAgID4+ IHByb3RvY29sIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMuIEJlbiwgdGhlIHJlc3Bvc2libGUgYXJlYSBkaXJlY3RvciBm b3IgdGhlDQo+ICAgICA+PiBTSVBCUkFORFkgV0csIHdpbGwgbG9vayBpbnRvIHRoaXMgYW5kIGdl dCBiYWNrIHRvIHRoZSBncm91cCB3aXRoIGENCj4gICAgID4+IGZpbmFsIHBsYW4uIEluIHRoZSBt ZWFudGltZSwgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgYXNzdW1wdGlvbiBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZQ0KPiAgICAgPj4gaW50 ZW5kZWQgc3RhdHVzIG9mIHRoZSBvc3J0cCBkcmFmdCB3aWxsIGJlIFByb3Bvc2VkIFN0YW5kYXJk Lg0KPiAgICAgPg0KPiAgICAgPiBDaGVlcnMsDQo+ICAgICA+DQo+ICAgICA+IEdvbnphbG8NCj4g ICAgID4NCj4gICAgID4gT24gMjMvMDkvMjAxNiAzOjI4IEFNLCBCZW4gQ2FtcGJlbGwgd3JvdGU6 DQo+ICAgICA+PiBIaSwNCj4gICAgID4+DQo+ICAgICA+PiBJbiB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgYWJv dXQgd2hhdCBzdGF0dXMgT1NSVFAgc2hvdWxkIGJlLCBJIHdhcyB1bmRlciB0aGUNCj4gICAgID4+ IGltcHJlc3Npb24gdGhhdCBwZW9wbGUgdGhvdWdodCB0aGF0IHRoZSBkcmFmdCBtb2RpZmllZCAo b3IgdmlvbGF0ZWQpDQo+ICAgICA+PiBzb21lIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgYWJvdXQgdXNp bmcgZW5jcnlwdGlvbiB3aXRoIEFWUCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbg0KPiAgICAgPj4gU0FWUC4gQ2FuIGFu eW9uZSBwb2ludCBtZSB0byB0aGUgc3BlY2lmaWNzPw0KPiAgICAgPj4NCj4gICAgID4+IFRoYW5r cyENCj4gICAgID4+DQo+ICAgICA+PiBCZW4uDQo+ICAgICA+Pg0KPiAgICAgPj4gX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gICAgID4+IFNpcGJyYW5k eSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gICAgID4+IFNpcGJyYW5keUBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86U2lwYnJh bmR5QGlldGYub3JnPiA8bWFpbHRvOlNpcGJyYW5keUBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86U2lwYnJhbmR5 QGlldGYub3JnPj4NCj4gICAgID4+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGlu Zm8vc2lwYnJhbmR5DQo+ICAgICA8aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5m by9zaXBicmFuZHk+DQo+ICAgICA+DQo+DQo+ICAgICBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiAgICAgU2lwYnJhbmR5IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiAg ICAgU2lwYnJhbmR5QGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpTaXBicmFuZHlAaWV0Zi5vcmc+IDxtYWlsdG86 U2lwYnJhbmR5QGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpTaXBicmFuZHlAaWV0Zi5vcmc+Pg0KPiAgICAgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zaXBicmFuZHkNCj4gICAgIDxodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NpcGJyYW5keT4NCj4NCj4NCg0K --_000_SN2PR03MB2350300E1448FA26F1A5820EB2DD0SN2PR03MB2350namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTUgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1m YWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAy IDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWws IGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJ Zm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIixzZXJpZjt9 DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCglj b2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFu Lk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpw dXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxNw0K CXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIs c2Fucy1zZXJpZjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHls ZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30N CkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjguNWluIDExLjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4waW4g MS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW47fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9u MTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0 cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1b aWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRt YXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5k aWZdLS0+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgbGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9InB1 cnBsZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZx dW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIGNvbmNlcm4gd2FzIGFi b3V0DQo8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1 b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPnRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcg ZnJvbSBSRkM0NTY4IDY6PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9u dC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7 Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+4oCcU1JUUCBzZWN1cml0eSBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbnMgTVVTVCBvbmx5IGJl IHVzZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgU1JUUCB0cmFuc3BvcnQgKGUuZy4sICZxdW90O1JUUC9TQVZQJnF1b3Q7 IG9yICZxdW90O1JUUC9TQVZQRiZxdW90OynigJ08bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBj bGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4mbmJz cDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlm O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkhhdmluZyBzYWlkIHRoYXQsIEkgYW0gY29tcGxldGVseSBpbiBmYXZv ciBvZiBwcm9ncmVzc2luZyB0aGlzIHByYWN0aWNhbGx5IHZlcnkgdXNlZnVsIGRyYWZ0IEFTQVAu PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNl cmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZx dW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5UaGFua3MsPG86cD48 L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2Nv bG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPlRvbGdhPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2Fs aWJyaSZxdW90OyxzYW5zLXNlcmlmO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZjtjb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6bm9u ZTtib3JkZXItbGVmdDpzb2xpZCBibHVlIDEuNXB0O3BhZGRpbmc6MGluIDBpbiAwaW4gNC4wcHQi Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0UxRTFF MSAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBpbiAwaW4gMGluIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGli cmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+IFNp cGJyYW5keSBbbWFpbHRvOnNpcGJyYW5keS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXQ0KPGI+T24gQmVoYWxm IE9mIDwvYj5BbmR5IEh1dHRvbjxicj4NCjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBUdWVzZGF5LCBPY3RvYmVyIDEx LCAyMDE2IDI6MzcgUE08YnI+DQo8Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IEdvbnphbG8gQ2FtYXJpbGxvICZsdDtHb256 YWxvLkNhbWFyaWxsb0Blcmljc3Nvbi5jb20mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KPGI+Q2M6PC9iPiBCZW4gQ2FtcGJl bGwgJmx0O2JlbkBub3N0cnVtLmNvbSZndDs7IHNpcGJyYW5keUBpZXRmLm9yZzxicj4NCjxiPlN1 YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTogW1NpcGJyYW5keV0gT1NSVFAgUXVlc3Rpb248bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8 L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+SSBhbSBub3QgYXdhcmUgdGhh dCB0aGUgT1NSVFAgZHJhZnQgdmlvbGF0ZXMgYW55IG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBzdGF0ZW1lbnRzIGFib3V0 IHVzaW5nIGVuY3J5cHRpb24gd2l0aCBBVlAgYWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlcmUgd2FzIGEgZGlzY3Vzc2lv biBhdCBJRVRGOTYgYWJvdXQgd2hldGhlciB0aGUgU0RQIEFuc3dlciBzaG91bGQgY29udGFpbiBT QVZQIGlmIHRoZSBhbnN3ZXJlciByZWNvZ25pc2VkIGFuZCBtYWtlcyB1c2Ugb2YNCiB0aGUgYT1j cnlwdG8uICZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+VGhpcyBpcyB3aHkgYW4gdXBkYXRlIHRvIHRoZSBPU1JUUCBkcmFmdCBoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWdn ZXN0ZWQgc3VjaCB0aGF0IHRoZSBhbnN3ZXIgbWF5IGNvbnRhaW4gQVZQIG9yIFNBVlAgd2hpY2gg SSB0aGluayB3ZSBzaG91bGQgYWNjZXB0IGFuZCBpZiB3ZSBoYWQgdG8gY2hvb3NlIGJldHdlZW4g QVZQIG9yIFNBVlAgaW4gdGhlIGFuc3dlciBJIHRoaW5rIEkgd291bGQgZmFsbCBvbiB0aGUgU0FW UCBzaWRlLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9y bWFsIj5SZWdhcmRzPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj5BbmR5PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+T24gVHVlLCBPY3QgMTEsIDIwMTYgYXQgMjoxNyBQTSwgR29uemFsbyBDYW1h cmlsbG8gJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpHb256YWxvLkNhbWFyaWxsb0Blcmljc3Nvbi5jb20i IHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5Hb256YWxvLkNhbWFyaWxsb0Blcmljc3Nvbi5jb208L2E+Jmd0OyB3 cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3Jk ZXItbGVmdDpzb2xpZCAjQ0NDQ0NDIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6MGluIDBpbiAwaW4gNi4wcHQ7bWFy Z2luLWxlZnQ6NC44cHQ7bWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBpbiI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5I aSBBbmR5LDxicj4NCjxicj4NCmlmIHlvdSBkbyBub3Qgc2VlIGFueSBpc3N1ZSBoZXJlLCB0aGVu IHlvdSBzdXJlIHdvbid0IGhhdmUgYW55IHRyb3VibGU8YnI+DQpyZXNwb25kaW5nIHRvIEJlbidz IG9yaWdpbmFsIHF1ZXN0aW9uIGJlbG93LCB3aGljaCBpcyB3aGF0IHRoZSBBRHMgYXJlPGJyPg0K YWN0dWFsbHkgYWZ0ZXIsIHJpZ2h0PyA7LSkgVGhhbmtzITxicj4NCjxicj4NCkNoZWVycyw8YnI+ DQo8YnI+DQpHb256YWxvPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KT24gMTEvMTAvMjAxNiAzOjU2IFBNLCBBbmR5IEh1 dHRvbiB3cm90ZTo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IEkgYW0gbm90IHN1cmUgd2hhdCB0aGlzIGlzc3VlIGlzIGhl cmUgSSB0aG91Z2h0IHdlIHdlcmUgaGVhZGluZyB0b3dhcmRzPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBjb25zZW5zdXMg ZHVyaW5nIElFVEY5NiB0byBtYWtlIHRoZSBPU1JUUCBkcmFmdCBQUyBhbmQgZ2V0IHRoZSBBRCdz IHRvPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBmaXggdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIuPGJyPg0KJmd0Ozxicj4NCiZndDsgV2UgZGlz Y3Vzc2VkIHRoZSBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eSBvZiBzcGxpdHRpbmcgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGFuZCB0YWtpbmcg YSBzbWFsbDxicj4NCiZndDsgZHJhZnQgdG8gTU1VU0lDIHdpdGggdGhlIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBwYXJ0 cyBidXQgSSB0aGluayB3ZSBoYWQgY29uc2Vuc3VzPGJyPg0KJmd0OyB0aGF0IHRoaXMgZGlkIG5v dCBtYWtlIHNlbnNlIGFuZCB3ZSBzaG91bGQganVzdCBmaXggdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIsPGJyPg0KJmd0 Ozxicj4NCiZndDsgUmVnYXJkczxicj4NCiZndDsgQW5keTxicj4NCiZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IE9u IEZyaSwgT2N0IDcsIDIwMTYgYXQgMTo0NCBQTSwgR29uemFsbyBDYW1hcmlsbG88YnI+DQomZ3Q7 ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86R29uemFsby5DYW1hcmlsbG9AZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tIj5Hb256 YWxvLkNhbWFyaWxsb0Blcmljc3Nvbi5jb208L2E+ICZsdDttYWlsdG86PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRv OkdvbnphbG8uQ2FtYXJpbGxvQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbSI+R29uemFsby5DYW1hcmlsbG9AZXJpY3Nz b24uY29tPC9hPiZndDsmZ3Q7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPiZndDsgd3JvdGU6PGJyPg0KJmd0Ozxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwO0FsbCw8YnI+DQomZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7cGxlYXNl LCBub3RlIHRoYXQgYXMgeW91IGFsbCBrbm93IHRoZSBTSVBCUkFORFkgV0cgaXMgY2hhcnRlcmVk IG5vdCB0bzxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwO3Byb2R1Y2UgUFMgc3BlY3MuIFNv LCBpZiB3ZSBkbyBub3QgcHJvdmlkZSBCZW4gd2l0aCBzb21lIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBmb3I8YnI+DQom Z3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDttYWtpbmcgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBQUywgaXQgd2lsbCAqbm90 KiBiZSBhIFBTLiBDb21tZW50cz88YnI+DQomZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9zaXBicmFuZHkvY2hh cnRlci8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL3dnL3Np cGJyYW5keS9jaGFydGVyLzwvYT48YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmbHQ7PGEg aHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9zaXBicmFuZHkvY2hhcnRlci8i IHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL3dnL3NpcGJyYW5k eS9jaGFydGVyLzwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0Ozxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNw OyZndDsgVGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgaXMgbm90IGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvIGRlZmluZSBuZXcgcHJv dG9jb2xzIG9yIG1vZGlmeTxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZndDsgZXhpc3Rp bmcgb25lczsgcmF0aGVyIGl0IHdpbGwgZGVmaW5lIHByYWN0aWNlcyBmb3IgdXNpbmcgZXhpc3Rp bmc8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7IHByb3RvY29scy48YnI+DQomZ3Q7 PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7VGhhbmtzLDxicj4NCiZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7 Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtHb256YWxvPGJyPg0KJmd0Ozxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwO09uIDIzLzA5LzIwMTYgODo1OCBBTSwgR29uemFsbyBDYW1hcmlsbG8gd3JvdGU6 PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0OyBIaSw8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0OyBmb3IgY29u dGV4dCwgQmVuJ3MgcXVlc3Rpb24gcmVsYXRlcyB0byB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHBhcmFncmFwaCBp biB0aGU8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7IG1pbnV0ZXMgb2YgdGhlIGxh c3QgU0lQQlJBTkRZIHNlc3Npb246PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0Ozxi cj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZndDsgPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvcHJvY2VlZGluZ3MvOTYvbWludXRlcy9taW51dGVzLTk2LXNpcGJyYW5keSIgdGFyZ2V0 PSJfYmxhbmsiPg0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcHJvY2VlZGluZ3MvOTYvbWludXRlcy9t aW51dGVzLTk2LXNpcGJyYW5keTwvYT48YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmbHQ7 PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcHJvY2VlZGluZ3MvOTYvbWludXRlcy9taW51 dGVzLTk2LXNpcGJyYW5keSIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3By b2NlZWRpbmdzLzk2L21pbnV0ZXMvbWludXRlcy05Ni1zaXBicmFuZHk8L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj4NCiZn dDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsm Z3Q7Jmd0OyBUaGUgZ3JvdXAgYWdyZWVkIG9uIGFkdmFuY2luZyB0aGUgb3NydHAgZHJhZnQgYXMg UHJvcG9zZWQ8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyBTdGFuZGFyZC4g SG93ZXZlciwgdGhlIFNJUEJSQU5EWSBXRyBpcyBub3QgY2hhcnRlcmVkIHRvIGRldmVsb3AgbmV3 PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsgcHJvdG9jb2wgbWVjaGFuaXNt cy4gQmVuLCB0aGUgcmVzcG9zaWJsZSBhcmVhIGRpcmVjdG9yIGZvciB0aGU8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyBTSVBCUkFORFkgV0csIHdpbGwgbG9vayBpbnRvIHRo aXMgYW5kIGdldCBiYWNrIHRvIHRoZSBncm91cCB3aXRoIGE8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNw OyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyBmaW5hbCBwbGFuLiBJbiB0aGUgbWVhbnRpbWUsIHRoZSB3b3JraW5n IGFzc3VtcHRpb24gaXMgdGhhdCB0aGU8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OyBpbnRlbmRlZCBzdGF0dXMgb2YgdGhlIG9zcnRwIGRyYWZ0IHdpbGwgYmUgUHJvcG9zZWQg U3RhbmRhcmQuPGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0Ozxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJz cDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZndDsgQ2hlZXJzLDxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNw OyZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7IEdvbnphbG88YnI+DQomZ3Q7 Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0 OyBPbiAyMy8wOS8yMDE2IDM6MjggQU0sIEJlbiBDYW1wYmVsbCB3cm90ZTo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyBIaSw8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJz cDsmZ3Q7Jmd0Ozxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7IEluIHRoZSBk aXNjdXNzaW9ucyBhYm91dCB3aGF0IHN0YXR1cyBPU1JUUCBzaG91bGQgYmUsIEkgd2FzIHVuZGVy IHRoZTxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7IGltcHJlc3Npb24gdGhh dCBwZW9wbGUgdGhvdWdodCB0aGF0IHRoZSBkcmFmdCBtb2RpZmllZCAob3IgdmlvbGF0ZWQpPGJy Pg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsgc29tZSBub3JtYXRpdmUgc3RhdGVt ZW50IGFib3V0IHVzaW5nIGVuY3J5cHRpb24gd2l0aCBBVlAgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW48YnI+DQomZ3Q7 Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyBTQVZQLiBDYW4gYW55b25lIHBvaW50IG1lIHRv IHRoZSBzcGVjaWZpY3M/PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDs8YnI+ DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyBUaGFua3MhPGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNw OyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OyBCZW4uPGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7 Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXzxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7 IFNpcGJyYW5keSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Q8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyA8YSBo cmVmPSJtYWlsdG86U2lwYnJhbmR5QGlldGYub3JnIj5TaXBicmFuZHlAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+ICZs dDttYWlsdG86PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOlNpcGJyYW5keUBpZXRmLm9yZyI+U2lwYnJhbmR5QGll dGYub3JnPC9hPiZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyA8YSBo cmVmPSJodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NpcGJyYW5keSIgdGFy Z2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPg0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zaXBi cmFuZHk8L2E+PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBz Oi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc2lwYnJhbmR5IiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFu ayI+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zaXBicmFuZHk8L2E+Jmd0 Ozxicj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZndDs8YnI+DQomZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX188YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtTaXBicmFuZHkgbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0PGJyPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOlNpcGJyYW5k eUBpZXRmLm9yZyI+U2lwYnJhbmR5QGlldGYub3JnPC9hPiAmbHQ7bWFpbHRvOjxhIGhyZWY9Im1h aWx0bzpTaXBicmFuZHlAaWV0Zi5vcmciPlNpcGJyYW5keUBpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0K Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFp bG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zaXBicmFuZHkiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NpcGJyYW5keTwvYT48YnI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNw OyAmbmJzcDsmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5m by9zaXBicmFuZHkiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFu L2xpc3RpbmZvL3NpcGJyYW5keTwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KJmd0Ozxicj4NCiZndDs8bzpwPjwvbzpw PjwvcD4NCjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4m bmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+ DQo= --_000_SN2PR03MB2350300E1448FA26F1A5820EB2DD0SN2PR03MB2350namp_-- From nobody Wed Oct 12 07:42:26 2016 Return-Path: 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 E407C129577 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:42:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996] 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 jYuQWItGP51A for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:42:22 -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 463EA12954B for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.21] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u9CEgCko021776 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:42:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.21] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Asveren, Tolga" Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:42:12 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_DD569223-F849-458C-9D66-7344EE86B009_=" Embedded-HTML: [{"HTML":[558, 9735], "plain":[96, 4628], "uuid":"AF84C052-2B4B-4BAD-ADC7-5E4798B9D0EE"}] X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5263) Archived-At: Cc: "sipbrandy@ietf.org" , Gonzalo Camarillo , Andy Hutton 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:42:25 -0000 --=_MailMate_DD569223-F849-458C-9D66-7344EE86B009_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: > =E2=80=9CSRTP security descriptions MUST only be used with the SRTP = > transport (e.g., "RTP/SAVP" or "RTP/SAVPF")=E2=80=9D > > 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 > Cc: Ben Campbell ; 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=3Dcrypto. > > 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 = > >= = > 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 >> = = >> >> >> 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/ >> >> >> > 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 >> = >> > >> >> 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 >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sipbrandy mailing list >> Sipbrandy@ietf.org = >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Sipbrandy mailing list > Sipbrandy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy --=_MailMate_DD569223-F849-458C-9D66-7344EE86B009_= Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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:

=E2=80=9CSRTP security descriptio= ns MUST only be used with the SRTP transport (e.g., "RTP/SAVP" = or "RTP/SAVPF")=E2=80=9D

 

Having said that, I am completely= in favor of progressing this practically very useful draft ASAP.

 

Thanks,

Tolga

 

 

From: Sipbrandy [mailto:sipbra= ndy-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 n= ormative 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=3Dcrypto.  

 

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 s= hould 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 towa= rds
> 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 sma= ll
> draft to MMUSIC with the normative parts but I think we had consensu= s
> 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.Camari= llo@ericsson.com <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>>

> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>     please, note that as you all know the SIPBRANDY W= G is chartered not to
>     produce PS specs. So, if we do not provide Ben wi= th some arguments for
>     making this draft PS, it will *not* be a PS. Comm= ents?
>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipbrandy= /charter/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipbr= andy/charter/>
>
>     > The working group is not expected to define = new protocols or modify
>     > existing ones; rather it will define practic= es 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 f= ollowing paragraph in the
>     > minutes of the last SIPBRANDY session:
>     >
>     > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy
>     <https://www.ietf.org/pr= oceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy>
>     >
>     >> The group agreed on advancing the osrtp = draft as Proposed
>     >> Standard. However, the SIPBRANDY WG is n= ot chartered to develop new
>     >> protocol mechanisms. Ben, the resposible= area director for the
>     >> SIPBRANDY WG, will look into this and ge= t 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 OSR= TP should be, I was under the
>     >> impression that people thought that the = draft modified (or violated)
>     >> some normative statement about using enc= ryption with AVP rather than
>     >> SAVP. Can anyone point me to the specifi= cs?
>     >>
>     >> 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/si= pbrandy>
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________ >     Sipbrandy mailing list
>     Sipbrandy@i= etf.org <mailto:Sipbrandy@ie= tf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbra= ndy
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/si= pbrandy>
>
>

 

___________________________= ____________________
Sipbrandy mailing list
Sipbrandy@ietf.org
--=_MailMate_DD569223-F849-458C-9D66-7344EE86B009_=-- From nobody Wed Oct 12 07:44:20 2016 Return-Path: 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 ABA7512954B for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:44:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996] 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 Rh2suf3BsMmt for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:44:16 -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 1F84C1294CF for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.21] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u9CEiBkd022125 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:44:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.21] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Asveren, Tolga" Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:44:12 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_62EA7ABB-459B-4813-A6F7-75A194EC548A_=" Embedded-HTML: [{"HTML":[765, 10683], "plain":[171, 4994], "uuid":"DF40A7E7-A71E-425D-A862-A9EB5B60C166"}] X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5263) Archived-At: Cc: "sipbrandy@ietf.org" , Gonzalo Camarillo , Andy Hutton 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:44:19 -0000 --=_MailMate_62EA7ABB-459B-4813-A6F7-75A194EC548A_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (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: >> =E2=80=9CSRTP security descriptions MUST only be used with the SRTP = >> transport (e.g., "RTP/SAVP" or "RTP/SAVPF")=E2=80=9D >> >> 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 >> Cc: Ben Campbell ; 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=3Dcrypto. >> >> 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 = >> = > = >> 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 >>> = >>> >> >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> > 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 >>> >>> > >>> >> 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 >>> >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sipbrandy mailing list >>> Sipbrandy@ietf.org = >>> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy >>> >>> >>> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Sipbrandy mailing list >> Sipbrandy@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy --=_MailMate_62EA7ABB-459B-4813-A6F7-75A194EC548A_= Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
(Oops, I sent that before I was finished.)
This seems to require OSRTP to update 4568. Do pe= ople 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:

=E2=80=9CSRTP security descriptio= ns MUST only be used with the SRTP transport (e.g., "RTP/SAVP" = or "RTP/SAVPF")=E2=80=9D

 

Having said that, I am completely= in favor of progressing this practically very useful draft ASAP.

 

Thanks,

Tolga

 

 

From: Sipbrandy [mailto:sipbra= ndy-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 n= ormative 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=3Dcrypto.  

 

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 s= hould 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 towa= rds
> 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 sma= ll
> draft to MMUSIC with the normative parts but I think we had consensu= s
> 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.Camari= llo@ericsson.com <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>>

> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>     please, note that as you all know the SIPBRANDY W= G is chartered not to
>     produce PS specs. So, if we do not provide Ben wi= th some arguments for
>     making this draft PS, it will *not* be a PS. Comm= ents?
>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipbrandy= /charter/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipbr= andy/charter/>
>
>     > The working group is not expected to define = new protocols or modify
>     > existing ones; rather it will define practic= es 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 f= ollowing paragraph in the
>     > minutes of the last SIPBRANDY session:
>     >
>     > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy
>     <https://www.ietf.org/pr= oceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy>
>     >
>     >> The group agreed on advancing the osrtp = draft as Proposed
>     >> Standard. However, the SIPBRANDY WG is n= ot chartered to develop new
>     >> protocol mechanisms. Ben, the resposible= area director for the
>     >> SIPBRANDY WG, will look into this and ge= t 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 OSR= TP should be, I was under the
>     >> impression that people thought that the = draft modified (or violated)
>     >> some normative statement about using enc= ryption with AVP rather than
>     >> SAVP. Can anyone point me to the specifi= cs?
>     >>
>     >> 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/si= pbrandy>
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________ >     Sipbrandy mailing list
>     Sipbrandy@i= etf.org <mailto:Sipbrandy@ie= tf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbra= ndy
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/si= pbrandy>
>
>

 

___________________________= ____________________
Sipbrandy mailing list
Sipbrandy@ietf.org
--=_MailMate_62EA7ABB-459B-4813-A6F7-75A194EC548A_=-- From nobody Thu Oct 13 02:32:58 2016 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 02:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id l13so175117157itl.1 for ; 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: References: <35CFE35E-E48B-419F-9557-B38A967CE797@nostrum.com> <7656b4d0-b529-46ce-787d-74debb0f1c9c@ericsson.com> From: Andy Hutton Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:32:52 +0100 Message-ID: To: Ben Campbell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045dac84398653053ebbcb64 Archived-At: Cc: "sipbrandy@ietf.org" , Gonzalo Camarillo , "Asveren, Tolga" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:32:56 -0000 --f403045dac84398653053ebbcb64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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: > > =E2=80=9CSRTP security descriptions MUST only be used with the SRTP trans= port > (e.g., "RTP/SAVP" or "RTP/SAVPF")=E2=80=9D > > > > Having said that, I am completely in favor of progressing this practicall= y > 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 > *Cc:* Ben Campbell ; 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 recognis= ed > and makes use of the a=3Dcrypto. > > > > 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 h= ad > 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 > > = > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > The working group is not expected to define new protocols or modi= fy > > > 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 > > > > > > > >> 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 unde= r > 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sipbrandy mailing list > > Sipbrandy@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sipbrandy mailing list > Sipbrandy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy > > --f403045dac84398653053ebbcb64 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes I agree.

Probably also points us fu= rther towards stating that the answer must/should contain SAVP when OSRTP i= s negotiated.

Regards
Andy

On Wed, Oct 12, 201= 6 at 3:44 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
<= div dir=3D"auto">(Oops, I sent that before I was finished.)
This seems to require OSRTP to update 4568. Do peop= le agree?
Thanks!
Ben.
On 12 Oct 2016, at 9:42, Ben Campbell wrote:
<= div dir=3D"auto">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:

=E2=80=9CSRTP security descriptions M= UST only be used with the SRTP transport (e.g., "RTP/SAVP" or &qu= ot;RTP/SAVPF")=E2=80=9D

=C2=A0

Having said that, I am completely in = favor of progressing this practically very useful draft ASAP.=

=C2=A0

Thanks,

Tolga

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

I am not aware that the OSRTP draft violates any nor= mative statements about using encryption with AVP although there was a disc= ussion at IETF96 about whether the SDP Answer should contain SAVP if the an= swerer recognised and makes use of the a=3Dcrypto. =C2=A0

=C2=A0

This is why an update to the OSRTP draft has been su= ggested such that the answer may contain AVP or SAVP which I think we shoul= d accept and if we had to choose between AVP or SAVP in the answer I think = I would fall on the SAVP side.

=C2=A0

Regards

Andy

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo &= lt;Gonz= alo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi Andy,

if you do not see any issue here, then you sure won't have any trouble<= br> responding to Ben's original question below, which is what the ADs are<= br> 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 toward= s
> 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<= br> > 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@ericss= on.com>>

> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0All,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0please, note that as you all know the SIPBRANDY WG = is chartered not to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0produce PS specs. So, if we do not provide Ben with= some arguments for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0making this draft PS, it will *not* be a PS. Commen= ts?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipbrand= y/charter/
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipb= randy/charter/>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> The working group is not expected to define ne= w protocols or modify
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> existing ones; rather it will define practices= for using existing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> protocols.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Thanks,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Gonzalo
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 23/09/2016 8:58 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Hi,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> for context, Ben's question relates to the= following paragraph in the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> minutes of the last SIPBRANDY session:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy<= /a>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.ietf.org/p= roceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-sipbrandy>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> The group agreed on advancing the osrtp dr= aft as Proposed
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Standard. However, the SIPBRANDY WG is not= chartered to develop new
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> protocol mechanisms. Ben, the resposible a= rea director for the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> SIPBRANDY WG, will look into this and get = back to the group with a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> final plan. In the meantime, the working a= ssumption is that the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> intended status of the osrtp draft will be= Proposed Standard.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Cheers,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Gonzalo
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> On 23/09/2016 3:28 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Hi,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> In the discussions about what status OSRTP= should be, I was under the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> impression that people thought that the dr= aft modified (or violated)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> some normative statement about using encry= ption with AVP rather than
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> SAVP. Can anyone point me to the specifics= ?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Thanks!
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Ben.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> _____________________________________= __________
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Sipbrandy mailing list

>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> Sipbrandy@ietf.org <mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org&= gt;
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbrandy
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/s= ipbrandy>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0______________________________________________= _
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Sipbrandy mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Sipbrandy@ietf.org <mailto:Sipbrandy@ietf.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipbr= andy
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/s= ipbrandy>
>
>

=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
Sipbrandy mailing list

--f403045dac84398653053ebbcb64-- From nobody Fri Oct 21 16:36:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sipbrandy@ietf.org Delivered-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD780129876; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:21:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Secretariat\"" To: , X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.36.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147709207170.28214.1109532310325486627.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:21:11 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 16:36:32 -0700 Cc: ben@nostrum.com, sipbrandy@ietf.org Subject: [Sipbrandy] sipbrandy - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 97 X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 23:21:12 -0000 Dear Gonzalo Salgueiro, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. sipbrandy Session 1 (1:00:00) Monday, Morning Session I 0930-1200 Room Name: Grand Ballroom 2 size: 200 --------------------------------------------- Special Note: 11:00-12:00 Request Information: --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: SIP Best-practice Recommendations Against Network Dangers to privacY Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area Session Requester: Gonzalo Salgueiro Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1 Hour Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: rtcweb perc netvc stir modern mmusic ice clue payload avtext avtcore sipcore dispatch saag lurk its tram Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Mon Oct 24 11:29:09 2016 Return-Path: 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 1FCF5129990; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 CvZt8I4i9EII; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 238AF12952E; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3996; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1477333746; x=1478543346; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=03ftZ1ZjJR3K83O5GkfEzugNRAkqy4BsLn8/lfadBrw=; b=UrF3VuyrYtFy9qvv/Qw+Wt9N22rQKTYOHr2Qjy338I2st08m3TYhYqDW tRF80oeU3Urq6Xqkt22YFYbTdgvW0EjOMxuUz5pvbOaOm1GuO0lUprKPy ew3VEuCVsB+I61npY/7T2+5PqmGnxZCa4G2HcwaCh/oDMYUcLKettaFS1 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0COAgCDUg5Y/4ENJK1cGwEBAQMBAQEJA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBgyoBAQEBAR1YfQeNLaYlgweCD4IHJ4V6gWk/FAECAQEBAQEBAWIdC4RpHVw?= =?us-ascii?q?SAQx0JwQOiFcOwUUBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXBYY9gX2Ja2SCLwWUN?= =?us-ascii?q?4VdAYYpiWmBboRtiSeRBgEeNl6FAnIBh0CBAAEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,542,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217";a="339688037" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Oct 2016 18:29:05 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9OIT5e8007913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:29:05 GMT Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:29:04 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) by XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:29:04 -0500 From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" To: "sipbrandy@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: SIPBRANDY Meeting in Seoul - Call for Presentations Thread-Index: AQHSLiR/mp6bATX3DUKJNESX1XhPTQ== Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:29:04 +0000 Message-ID: <4775E22B-4F13-43DB-AD19-91FCE4014404@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.156.48.198] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4775E22B4F1343DBAD1991FCE4014404ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sipbrandy-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: [Sipbrandy] SIPBRANDY Meeting in Seoul - Call for Presentations X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:29:08 -0000 --_000_4775E22B4F1343DBAD1991FCE4014404ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable SIPBRANDY - The final agenda for IETF 97 has been published at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda.html SIPBRANDY will be meeting at 11:00-12:00 on Monday Morning in Grand Ballroo= m 2 (Note: We are only using a 1 hour sub-block of the Monday Morning Session 1= block, so DISPATCH will be meeting immediately before us in the same room = from 9:30 AM - 11 AM). If you'd like a slot to present, please send a request to the chairs by Fri= day November 4th. We are expecting the authors of our two WG adopted drafts to present update= s with the intent of making forward progress. We expect that will be Alan = Johnston and Jon Peterson. If that will not be the case, please let the ch= airs know soon. We also kindly request that any presenters to please send your slides for p= resentations as early as possible. See you in all in Seoul! Cheers, Gonzalo and Gonzalo --_000_4775E22B4F1343DBAD1991FCE4014404ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable SIPBRANDY - 

The final agenda for IETF 97 has been published at: 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda.html

SIP= BRANDY will be meeting at 11:00-12:00 on Monday Morning in Grand Ballroom 2=
(No= te: We are only using a 1 hour sub-block of the Monday Morning Session 1 bl= ock, so DISPATCH will be meeting immediately before us in the same room fro= m 9:30 AM - 11 AM).
If = you'd like a slot to present, please send a request to the chairs by Friday= November 4th.

We are expecting the authors of our two WG adopted drafts t= o present updates with the intent of making forward progress.  We expe= ct that will be Alan Johnston and Jon Peterson.  If that will not be t= he case, please let the chairs know soon.

We also kindly requ= est that any presenters to please send your slides for presentations as ear= ly as possible.

See you in all in S= eoul!

Cheers,

Gonzalo and Gonzalo=
--_000_4775E22B4F1343DBAD1991FCE4014404ciscocom_-- From nobody Sun Oct 30 09:45:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sipbrandy@ietf.org Delivered-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9731200DF; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 06:55:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.36.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147783570649.20728.15709535217518057538.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 06:55:06 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:45:08 -0700 Cc: sipbrandy@ietf.org Subject: [Sipbrandy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-01.txt X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:55:06 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SIP Best-practice Recommendations Against Network Dangers to privacY of the IETF. Title : An Opportunistic Approach for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (OSRTP) Authors : Alan Johnston Bernard Aboba Andy Hutton Roland Jesske Thomas Stach Filename : draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-01.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2016-10-30 Abstract: Opportunistic Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (OSRTP) allows encrypted media to be used in environments where support for encryption is not known in advance, and not required. OSRTP is an implementation of Opportunistic Security, as defined in RFC 7435. OSRTP does not require advanced SDP extensions or features and is fully backwards compatible with existing secure and insecure implementations. OSRTP is not specific to any key management technique for SRTP. OSRTP is a transitional approach useful for migrating existing deployments of real-time communications to a fully encrypted and authenticated state. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Oct 31 15:55:02 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sipbrandy@ietf.org Delivered-To: sipbrandy@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D30129A33; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:33:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.37.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147794961281.23317.14581494097728004814.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:33:32 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:55:00 -0700 Cc: sipbrandy@ietf.org Subject: [Sipbrandy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-01.txt X-BeenThere: sipbrandy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: SIPBRANDY working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 21:33:33 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SIP Best-practice Recommendations Against Network Dangers to privacY of the IETF. Title : Best Practices for Securing RTP Media Signaled with SIP Authors : Jon Peterson Eric Rescorla Richard Barnes Russ Housley Filename : draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-01.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2016-10-31 Abstract: Although the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) includes a suite of security services that has been expanded by numerous specifications over the years, there is no single place that explains how to use SIP to establish confidential media sessions. Additionally, existing mechanisms have some feature gaps that need to be identified and resolved in order for them to address the pervasive monitoring threat model. This specification describes best practices for negotiating confidential media with SIP, including both comprehensive protection solutions which bind the media to SIP-layer identities as well as opportunistic security solutions. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/