Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > I think the idea here is that you are signalling your intent to start an > encrypted tunnel. You don't want an end-to-end stream just for the fun > of it, you want an encrypted connection (which you might also use to > bootstrap security into other channels). So here XTLS is the application > type.
Ok > Yes, that's another way to look at it. I was hoping that we would define > one <encryption/> element / namespace (I don't think we want to call it > <crypto/> because we use that for SRTP) and then that might include Right. If TLS and SRTP are at different layers, we should have different element names. >> I have no idea what the correct way is. I guess I prefer 1 because it >> respects the different layers. We can have two security layers: one >> independend of the application and one depends on it. We could use >> normal RTP over DTLS if someday people prefer to use DTLS and not SRTP >> anymore. > > That's what I was thinking, but I'm not wedded to any of this yet. We > can discuss more on the list here or at FOSDEM. I guess the three threads on security are a good "summary" about the current status for the FOSDEM. Dirk -- If you explain so clearly that nobody can misunderstand, somebody will.
