Re: [Speechsc] RAI review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-19

Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com> Thu, 09 July 2009 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Even.roni@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: speechsc@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: speechsc@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6813A6866; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.680, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cC+1ttcJCOVH; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8D23A6405; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KMJ0030C8VMF2@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:57:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.3]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KMJ006CY8VMSR@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:57:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-79-179-66-111.red.bezeqint.net [79.179.66.111]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KMJ001HU8VGOC@szxml01-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:57:22 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:56:21 +0300
From: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <EE02487B-63DE-4CC6-81A9-7A4FAAD4A76D@standardstrack.com>
To: 'Eric Burger' <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Message-id: <05e101ca00d7$bc996aa0$35cc3fe0$%roni@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-us
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcoA08zySVmonQexS/CVwQ8mR6VuCgAAoPQg
References: <033101c9ff3a$cbe33160$63a99420$%roni@huawei.com> <EE02487B-63DE-4CC6-81A9-7A4FAAD4A76D@standardstrack.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:28:56 -0700
Cc: speechsc@ietf.org, 'Saravanan Shanmugham' <sarvi@cisco.com>, rai@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Speechsc] RAI review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-19
X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group <speechsc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc>, <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speechsc>
List-Post: <mailto:speechsc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc>, <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:57:07 -0000

Eric,
My comment is that in this case in AVT we say that you do not need to
mandate SRTP but mandate a security mechanism that can be  not only SRTP but
in a different layer like ipsec. This is why I gave a reference to the
srtp-not-mandatory draft

Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger@standardstrack.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 11:28 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: Saravanan Shanmugham; Daniel Burnett; speechsc@ietf.org;
> rai@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RAI review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-19
> 
> The reality is that NO ONE has implemented any security to date. The
> GENART reviewer raised the same issue, and so far the work group has
> the same response: MRCPv2 (the speechsc work group) is not planning on
> figuring out which of the seven key exchange mechanisms to use in
> SIP.  We are counting on the community publishing something, and
> people using it.  After all, we are the "using SIP for media resource
> control" work group, not the "media resource control work group using
> something like SIP for control."
> 
> Does this work for you?
> 
> On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Roni Even wrote:
> 
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > 18.   In section 12.3 the suggestion is to use SRTP as the mandatory
> > interoperability mode. If the reason for mandating SRTP is for a
> > common mode you should also decide on a key exchange mechanism. I
> > suggest you look athttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avt-srtp-
> not-mandatory-02
> >  for discussion on media security.