[AVT] Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Draft -04 of Comedia over TLS submitted. Ready for WGLC?

[Jonathan Lennox <lennox at cs.columbia.edu>]

On Thursday, July 7 2005, "lazzaro" wrote to "mmusic at ietf.org" saying:

>  From this I-D:
> 
>     This document does not define any mechanism for securely transporting
>     RTP and RTCP packets over a connection-oriented channel.  There was
>     no consensus in the working group as to whether it would be better to
>     send Secure RTP packets [22] over a connection-oriented transport
>     [23], or whether it would be better to send standard unsecured RTP
>     packets over TLS using the mechanisms described in this document.
>     The group consensus was to wait until a use-case requiring secure
>     connection-oriented RTP was presented.
> 
> ---
> 
> I agree this accurately represents the discussion that went on in the
> working groups.
> 
> But, I thought it would be good to excerpt it and post it, to remind
> everyone that this is the decision that was made.  Given the lead time
> of the IETF process, it's a decision we'll all be living with for the next
> few years (at least).  If there's a group change of heart on the issue
> that is about to happen, having it happen now saves the community
> one cycle through the standards process.

I agree it's worth considering.

I also noticed that the recent AVT recharter contained the bullet point:

  - to provide a framing mechanism for RTP over TCP and TLS

Was inserting TLS just someone's "this seems like a good idea" as part of
describing draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans for the charter, or did was
this decision actually made at some point?

My own implementation of TCP/TLS (developed alongside the draft) actually
implements TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP, so I'd certainly be inclined to lean that way.

-- 
Jonathan Lennox
lennox at cs.columbia.edu

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt