[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Hi,

On 1 Mar 2006, at 08:39, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
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.

Okay. But can this discussion go into the security considerations section of the draft?


Colin

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