This issue is totally independent from E.164 I don't like the idea of requiring DTLS-SRTP to provide proof of possession of the keying material.
Ciao Hannes Elwell, John wrote: > SBCs do exist, often for good reasons that Hadriel has expanded on > already. I firmly believe that DTLS-SRTP will not be deployable in a > meaningful way without addressing this problem. Concerning solutions, we > have drafts from Kai and Dan, or perhaps a merger of the two somehow > would work. It also depends to some extent whether we are talking only > about email-style URIs or about E.164-based URIs too. > > John > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
