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. -- 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
