[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AVT] Updates to draft-ietf-avt-ulp
Hi,
The reason I see for keeping both is the following.
Most commmon use case, the one having the security context performs the
FEC. In this case there are no issues with performing FEC first and then
encrypting before transmission.
The case I think will be less commonly used. But which still is pretty
useful case is when the media stream is first protected by the media
transmitter. Then one realize that FEC is needed, and added by a node
not trusteed with the security context. In that case the FEC will be
performed on the encrypted packets.
It would have been good to have only one case. However I have heard of
actually cases when this second use case is in use.
Cheers
Magnus
Colin Perkins wrote:
Adam,
On 1 Mar 2006, at 04:53, Adam Li wrote:
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.
If I remember correctly, all the other RTP payload formats make such a
restriction. If there are current use cases for both orderings, then
fine, otherwise I would suggest defining one method only.
Colin
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
--
Magnus Westerlund
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt