> -----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
