Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Optional SRTP?

From: "Rick Porter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 08:36:32 -0400

I could not see why a re-INVITE was necessary using the scheme outlined
in the Security Descriptions draft (with possible modification). 

I'm still a ZRTP novice, but I can understand the re-INVITE when doing
ZRTP. However, the re-INVITE to keep signaling informed raises a red
flag about layering. My instinct tells me that if it is important to the
signaling, then the signaling should be driving the train. I still have
many ZRTP discussions to catch up on... 

Thanks,
Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Mills (wmills) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:04 PM
To: Rick Porter; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Optional SRTP?

If I understand the ZRTP proposal correctly ....

The initial media connection is made with RTP, then the endpoints
"upgrade" to SRTP using the media-inband key exchange suggested by ZRTP,
thus SRTP is negotiated outside the call signaling plane.  Re-INVITE (by
correcting SDP after the fact) informs the signaling plane that it
happened.

Regards,
Wayne

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: Mark Baugher <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 07:53:27 -0700

Rick, all
   We've been promised a list to discuss these topics under the  
auspices of the RAI.  I'd prefer to have this discussion there  
because it is more appropriate than MMUSIC.  Note that zrtp and the  
other proposals were not submitted to mmusic nor discussed at the  
recent wg meeting.

Mark