> 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.
Right. -d _______________________________________________ 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
