Re: Handling of unverified data and media

The unverified media scenarios seem to depend on ICE connectivity being bi-directionally enabled so as to permit the DTLS negotiation to proceed in advance of remote fingerprint arrival. If ICE candidates are signaled separately from the DTLS fingerprint exchange it might be feasible, such as in ORTC signaling where the ICE parameters are exchanged before the DtlsParameters.

At the last WebRTC interim a scenario involving PRANSWER and Trickle ICE was presented. In the scenario, the PRANSWER included a fingerprint, but possibly one which did not match the certificate provided in DTLS unlike the final answer. I do not see how this could work but perhaps I am missing something.

> On Mar 30, 2017, at 14:14, Peter Thatcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> We have a mailing list discussion (here), a bug (https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/849) and a PR (https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/1026#issuecomment-279238215) about this.  I've copied the following comments to the latter two, so I'm adding them here as well.
> 
> TL;DR: I don't think unverified media is compatible with ICE+DTLS.  Here is why (you can go see the bug, too):
> 
> You can receive DTLS from the remote side before receiving the remote description (and thus fingerprint). This happens if the remote side sends an ICE connectivity check and the local side sends a response and then the remote side sends a DTLS packet.
> 
> You cannot send DTLS from the local side before receiving the remote description (and thus fingerprint). This is because you can't send an ICE connectivity check until you have the remote ICE ufrag and pwd, and thus can't get an ICE connectivity check response, and thus can't send DTLS. This is because you can't send anything other than ICE until you get an ICE connectivity check response.
> 
> Since you can't send DTLS, you can't complete the handshake, and thus can't extract the SRTP key.
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I think this is impossible.
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:12 PM Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 3:44 PM, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> My question is: is this something that’s causing problems in real deployments, and requires a change in the standard? 
>> 
>> 1-800 go fedex. See webrtc requirements documents from many years ago. 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic