Subject: [rtcweb] Resolving whether to support additional key management methods

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 08:32:12 -0700

The Chairs would like to foster resolution of the long-running
discussion of support for additional key management methods, e.g. as
described in draft-ohlsson-rtcweb-sdes-support and the meeting
materials supporting draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-ekt.   Working group
discussion of this matter is, of course, welcome, but the chairs are
also considering a virtual interim meeting in January of 2013, focused
on this specific topic.  Comments on this plan or on the relevant
approaches is welcome.

regards,

Ted, Cullen, Magnus

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:02:03 -0700

A virtual meeting seems OK.

I'm totally heads-down in code for the next while so I won't really
be able to contribute to much list discussion on this until after IETF...

Best,
-Ekr

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:11:06 +0200

> on this specific topic.  Comments on this plan or on the relevant

What is the proposed outcome space of this discussion?
We already have a decision of "MUST do DTLS(-SRTP)", but I'm not sure 
what the other questions are.

I could see the result of the SDES discussion being one of:

- MUST do SDES
- SHOULD do SDES
- MAY do SDES
- MUST NOT do SDES

I also see another discussion around EKT, which could conclude

- MUST do EKT
- MAY do EKT
- MUST NOT do EKT

(I don't see much point in "SHOULD do EKT" - it doesn't give 
interoperability, so is not much more useful than MAY)

Are there other things on the table? Are both of the above on the table?

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:14:06 -0700

> We already have a decision of "MUST do DTLS(-SRTP)",

Yes, and we are not proposing to re-discuss whether this a MUST; we
want to focus on whether there are additional proposals which have
consensus.

> but I'm not sure what
> the other questions are.

Both of the above discussions have already started, and they have not
concluded; we want to conclude them.  If there are other proposals,
they can be brought forward in the context of this discussion,
provided they do not start with "let's ditch DTLS-(SRTP)".

regards,

Ted