Subject: [AVT] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-perkins-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-00.txt

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:55:47 +0000

A frequent question we get in IESG review is why RTP-related  
documents don't mandate SRTP as a single security mechanism. This  
draft tries to explain the design choices, and why it's appropriate  
to offer several options. We ran out of time before the deadline, so  
there are a lot of rough edges that will be fixed in the next  
version, but any comments are appreciated.

Cheers,
Colin (not as chair)

Begin forwarded message:
> From: [email-masked]
> Date: 18 February 2008 09:30:01 GMT
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-perkins-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-00.txt
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
> directories.
>
> 	Title           : Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Security  
> Mechanism
> 	Author(s)       : C. Perkins, M. Westerlund
> 	Filename        : draft-perkins-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 9
> 	Date            : 2008-02-18
>
> This memo discusses the problem of securing real-time multimedia
> sessions, and explains why the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
> does not mandate a single media security mechanism.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-perkins-avt-srtp-not- 
> mandatory-00.txt

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt