At 5:19 PM -0500 3/10/06, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Kent <kent at bbn.com> writes: > > > Stephen> It's communication overhead, not processing overhead, > Stephen> that motivates use of SRTP. the headers for SRTP are very > Stephen> small, even compared to transport mode ESP. > > >You should be aware that there is a proposal being discussed at AVT in >Dallas to use DTLS as an alternative to secure RTP instead of SRTP. >There are problems with keying SRTP that have caused some to question >whether perhaps the key establishment should happen as part of the RTP >stream establishment instead of part of the session setup layer. > >If this proposal is viewed favorably, it casts doubt on claims about >SRTP being different from other protocols in terms of overhead >requirements. Yes, IF the proposal is accepted, then it signals a change of heart by the folks who created SRTP and cited per-packet bandwidth as the rationale. Steve
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.