At Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:51:28 -0500, Dean Willis wrote: > > 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.
I don't see how that's the case. Can you explain? -Ekr _______________________________________________ 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
