RE: Media Security Requirements Draft: New Requirement

["Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)" <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, 

>>>As this isn't specific to RTPSEC (this isn't the place to discuss
it),
>>>why burden only RTPSEC with this?  It implies that only RTPSEC keying
will break, when in reality other 
>>>SIP things will break.
>> 
>>I don't see it as a burden, and I don't think it implies that there 
>>may not be problems elsewhere.
> 
>I expect most would consider breaking ICE to be a problem, 
>especially as it's the only mechanism that will work on any 
>network for NAT traversal (unlike UPnP, NSIS, etc.).

Yes, maybe ICE IS a problem. But, I don't understand why does that
prevent us from adding text regarding the solution we're working on in
RTPSEC... If the solution we're working on requires end-to-end
bi-directional connectivity before 200 I see no reason why we can't say
that.

But, I don't want to argue about it. It is quite obvious even without
any text, so...

Regards,

Christer