Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field

Obviously, if you want a transcoding service, then you can't you e2e
security.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 20:55
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: Paul Kyzivat; 'Cullen Jennings'; [email protected]; Audet, 
> Francois (SC100:3055); 'DRAGE, Keith (Keith)'; Dan Wing
> Subject: Re: [Sip] francois' comments and why RFC4474 not 
> used in the field
> 
> 
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 
> >
> > p.s. and not all transits do change SDP, and some only 
> change SDP in 
> > certain circumstances (like for transcoding).
> >
> 
> Well we certainly can't expect transcoding to be compatible with e2e  
> crypto.
> 
> So are there any legitimate use cases for requiring that the 
> protocol  
> supports MITM rewriting of SDP?
> 
> Having a transit provider that, for unknown reasons changes SDP is  
> still not an adequate justification.
> 
> Perhaps is lots of calls started failing because they 
> endpoints detect  
> that a MITM attack on their signaling/media has occurred, and did so  
> in a way that makes that failure evident to the MITM, then we'd see  
> fewer MITMs making that mistake.
> 
> --
> Dean
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip