Re: k= and draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis
Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:03:11 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
First, I don't feel strongly about this and glad to go with whatever Colin wants ... but what I was thinking .... k= is still defined by RFC4566 and things that implement RFC4566 still use it. I don't think we have an IANA table for this but if we do, the IANA registry still lists it with the reference for it as RFC4566. This bis draft becomes a new RFCAAAA and RFCAAAA does not mention k= one way or another. If something that implements RFCAAAA receives a k= line, it gets treated just like any other unknown line and is ignored. There not enough advice on how to use the k= stuff to expect interoperable implementation of any type of security that the IETF would currently consider acceptable to publish as a standard. Anyone who uses k= is very unlikely to be upgrading their software to RFCAAAA. I just don't see anything good that comes of putting this in the new RFC and it just adds to the confusion of how to secure RTP. > On Sep 12, 2017, at 3:19 AM, Keith Drage <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, we do not want people to use it. It was regarded as an inappropriate inadequately defined security mechanism when it existed. > > But I agree with Colin in that straight removal is nor the answer. Among other things, we need to consider what we want to appear in the IANA lists in order to ensure that the name is not reused. Is that different from what appears now? > > Keith > > On 08-Sep-17 11:24 AM, Colin Perkins wrote: >> I don’t think we can remove it – we need to document it for legacy reasons, if nothing else – but we can certainly strengthen the warnings not to use it. >> >> Colin >> >> >> >>> On 8 Sep 2017, at 08:14, Ali C. Begen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I have not seen it being used, but it could be just me who has not seen it. Will be happy to remove it, if everyone agrees. >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Do we still need the "k=" line in SDP? Could we just remove all of section 5.12 ? >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mmusic mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mmusic mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic >> >> >> >> -- >> Colin Perkins >> https://csperkins.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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