IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Perc] Consensus call: SSRCs are immutable

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Wed, 11 November 2015 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB941B3805 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:49:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2LuwgJdP65oR for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com (mail-yk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22C1B1B3803 for <perc@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykdr82 with SMTP id r82so64041168ykd.3 for <perc@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:49:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv_sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6gZYrGo0tGonAEuk/9s/p9V5adMKFbZswa4nvCP0oA0=; b=Wc+eS6vkHBL/c8ZV2KN5S6fgR2DRRn4zHJfo33n6Iu9TJ4oHY8w+LlpcVQA5c/Dc1Q IXFC6um1r4nLaa5OQL0V+Gf390m000AcMEO/ca129BhLQTcW/svMQ5bsB/3JunY1OueE jhLHOwEKd0IXs21HSFgGX4Kk7fWLQhRalho/dYY/lJDGsjQg/MSFT/YT+OUS4UWIcyUz qYXbZwaZhdkK1qH4WRoEHecdrMDED0KRCFa2c7B9m984Qp85/YQXtXs/dxeAC8GLWt6x /4I2gxotKm6IUb1pq95Kjueo1AMj9kNHVMg7dTE60GlI6qluWgJkwgZOAHGA3lPaXbYZ vVFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=6gZYrGo0tGonAEuk/9s/p9V5adMKFbZswa4nvCP0oA0=; b=PsdX2rHTo3f7hTN2KOKKubu9mjJN06j+ANCxU1ALZmsmxIAbufcMNKs3Kt6bCwB8xT UeuOwrZbw/Y7I/tnVSDuJk1L3aVr0ZTkmWRDNXVplxsbEB3t5bdciRKtRV74TCSBUenl qHXnwxkqVe5GxVezevVv/FlyRkPOKOEcyrdpx+XeyPHUutblk4hCYrScF5xuy9MyDW9z 9LKk+tZqznQj5n+Br2GofdAz0Y7bywVw7xgwAOOO7RdHfp/wG1xjTYx/X960fM9Ny9Fb 0NZTfrQ3ymkrjpgrSNCtFvk8UO0h7XflXCWwC+/vsVwA1K7LJ5vbS9UWQM2VkCW3SUlN Rrfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmIPurAobyRGsAFOf8igm/ewtgmWQpNn5B2+mR+XGVjRLT9KCq2B+UtdbbCZwQvCkbsrcSk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.72.197 with SMTP id v188mr8675780ywa.332.1447267793910; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:49:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.58.14 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:49:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:49:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgSn_wVYpiPGrnRM2=rJnwvjAuCnOC=+UitLN7zpo8h1hw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: perc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/_F72HKOI4cKy5odvcDbTcNTU6uo>
Subject: [Perc] Consensus call: SSRCs are immutable
X-BeenThere: perc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing <perc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perc>, <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/perc/>
List-Post: <mailto:perc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc>, <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:49:56 -0000

tl;dr: Do we have consensus that PERC should regard SSRCs as something
that an MDD MUST NOT change?  Please reply by Nov. 25.

At the PERC meeting at IETF 94, there was a discussion of which
portions of an SRTP packet an MDD should be allowed to modify.  At the
end of this discussion, there was pretty much unanimous agreement in
the room that MDDs should *not* be allowed to modify SSRC.  The only
people who were not explicitly in agreement were a couple of folks who
said they wanted to think about it.

This email is a formal call to confirm the consensus in the room.  If
you have any objections to the conclusion reached at the meeting --
especially if you were not at the meeting -- please reply to this
message no later than Wednesday, November 25.

Thanks,
--Richard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email