Eric Rescorla wrote: > At Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:51:28 -0500, > Dean Willis wrote: >> Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, this is the same conflation of concerns that has >>> characterized discussion of these drafts from the beginning. Quoting >>> my review of -01 from 2007/11: >>> >>> This draft seems to do two distinct things: >>> >>> - One specify a variant of RFC 4474 which signs a lot fewer headers. >>> [This should have said less of the message -- EKR] >>> - Specify a set of mechanisms to cryptographically prove that a given >>> media >>> stream corresponds to a given SDP offer/answer. >>> >>> These issues are wholly orthogonal and it just confuses the discussion >>> to try to discuss them together. >> They may be wholly orthogonal from one point of view, but I don't think >> they can be deployed independently. You have to have BOTH measures in >> place to gain the benefit of the proposal. > > I don't see how that's the case. Can you explain?
Signing LESS than what RFC 4474 signs opens up a whole can of worms UNLESS the media-path key exchange is also used to prove that the signaling and media correspond. -- 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
