RE: [AVT] Updates to draft-ietf-avt-ulp

["Adam Li" <adamli at hyervision.com>]

Hi Colin,

Restricting that FEC has to be before or after encryption is too limiting, I
think, especially because the encryption can be in a lot of different ways
other than SRTP. That section is concerning about the security consideration
in general and thus it may be necessary to talk about the issues one might
need to consider if encryptions are done in all different configurations. 

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp at csperkins.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:36 PM
> To: Adam Li
> Cc: 'IETF-AVT'
> Subject: Re: [AVT] Updates to draft-ietf-avt-ulp
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> On 28 Feb 2006, at 21:31, Adam Li wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for the comments. The draft is updated with the
> > recommendations, and a new revision (-16) is just submitted to the ID
> > manager.
> >
> > About Section 11 "Security Considerations", FEC can be applied
> > either before
> > or after encryption. Both cases are valid cases, so I kept both of
> > them. As
> > discussed in paragraph 2, when FEC is applied after, the FEC data
> > is secure,
> > so no additional security measure is needed. When FEC is applied
> > before, the
> > FEC data need to be encrypted as well. The rest of the section (from
> > paragraph 3 and on) focuses on the security considerations for that
> > scenario.
> 
> Is there any benefit to having both? It would ease interoperability
> if there were only one way of doing the encryption.
> 
> Colin



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