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

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Dean Willis
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:02 PM
> To: Francois Audet
> Cc: Cullen Jennings; [email protected]; DRAGE,Keith (Keith)
> Subject: Re: [Sip] francois' comments and why RFC4474 not 
> used in the field
> 
> 
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Francois Audet wrote:
> 
> >
> >> Except we MUST have a problem, because  several folks keep
> >> saying we do.
> >>
> >> So Cullen et. al. have been pushing us to nail down exactly
> >> what the problem is (and saying RFC 4474 is broken by SBCs is
> >> not an answer; it is a symptom).
> >>
> >> So what seems to be the problem?
> >
> > The problem is that people seem to prefer changing the SDP than
> > using TURN, because it is easier and more convenient.
> >
> > And what draft-wing-sip-identity-media does is show how and 
> 4474-like
> > mechanism that doesn't protect the IP address can be used in
> > conjunction with DTLS-SRTP, to provide an adequate level of 
> security.
> >
> > So, I'll repeat the question from a previous email: what's 
> wrong with
> > draft-wing-sip-identity-media???
> 
> If I understand the argument, extending the d-w-s-i-m 
> approach to non- 
> DTLS media legitimizes the obfuscation of the one media 
> identifier we  
> do have -- the IP address. 

Nope, it doesn't.

draft-wing-sip-identity-media uses the media path to prove it is the same
entity as indicated in the SIP signaling path.  Hence the name "SIP Identity
Media".

> Some people seem to find this unacceptable.

It would be objectionable, if SIP Identity Media did that.  It doesn't.

-d

_______________________________________________
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