stpeter at stpeter.im
Sun Jul 27 20:40:37 CDT 2008
Robert McQueen wrote:
> We decided (eventually) that SRTP shouldn't be represented as a
> transport, because the encryption/keying/etc is specific to RTP (it
> makes no sense to consider file transfer over SRTP, for example).
> However, it should also not be a new content description, as the
> codec/payload type negotiation is in common with the RTP content
> description, and we don't really want to nest the RTP stuff inside
> another namespace either.
> Therefore, it should be an optional element which can be added to RTP
> content descriptions. Mapping to SIP profiles like RTP/AVP and SRTP/AVP
> is doable by inspecting whether or not this element is present. Diana
> Cionoiu has a proposal for a <crypto> element to achieve this, which she
> can follow up with.
> I have no particularly strong feelings on whether this should be in a
> separate XEP/namespace, or just an optional part of the RTP XEP-0167. I
> think it should probably just go in XEP-0167.
I think that putting this in XEP-0167 makes sense.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20080727/c6176a2e/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the Jingle