ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Genart LC review: draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy-06

2015-05-18 04:38:49
Robert Sparks skrev den 2015-05-14 21:21:

Major issues:

I'm surprised that there is no mention of how SRTP fits into the
vocabulary this
document builds. Would it be a mistake for someone to think of SRTP as what
this document calls a transformation? Are there any consequences of
using SRTP
on one or more of the streams being associated that impact how you would
talk about
the association? (There are certainly consequences about which elements
can see
into the various streams).


Yes, encryption is clearly a transformation. And there are cases where the order of the encryption and other transformations, like FEC, do matter. Thus, I agree that it is an significant oversight to not include security.

So SRTP is an Securing / Protection (as it is not only Encryption) transformation that operates on Source RTP Streams or Redundancy RTP Streams to create Secured Source RTP Streams or Secured Redundancy RTP Stream.

If one looks on something like ISMAcrypt that operates on a special form of packetized encoded streams, i.e. payload created, but not RTP headers, we get into further distinctions that we so far haven't needed to have.

I don't know how well we must ensure that something like ISMAcrypt is clearly defined, because then we do need to split the RTP packetization transformation into two parts.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: 
magnus(_dot_)westerlund(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------