[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory

Network Working Group                                         C. Perkins
Internet-Draft                                     University of Glasgow
Intended status: Informational                             M. Westerlund
Expires: January 15, 2009                                       Ericsson
                                                           July 14, 2008


          Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Security Mechanism
              draft-perkins-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 15, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This memo discusses the problem of securing real-time multimedia
   sessions, and explains why the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
   does not mandate a single media security mechanism.







Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             SRTP Not Mandatory                  July 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  RTP Applications and Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Implications for RTP Media Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Implications for Key Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  On the Requirement for Strong Security in IETF protocols  . . . 6
   6.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   9.  To Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9





































Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             SRTP Not Mandatory                  July 2008


1.  Introduction

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [1] is widely used for voice
   over IP, Internet television, video conferencing, and various other
   real-time and streaming media applications.  Despite this, the base
   RTP specification provides very limited options for media security,
   and defines no standard key exchange mechanism.  Rather, a number of
   extensions are defined to provide confidentiality and authentication
   of media streams, and to exchange security keys.  This memo outlines
   why it is appropriate that multiple extension mechanisms are defined,
   rather than mandating a single media security and keying mechanism.

   This memo provides information for the community; it does not specify
   a standard of any kind.

   The structure of this memo is as follows: we begin, in Section 2 by
   describing the scenarios in which RTP is deployed.  Following this,
   Section 3 outlines the implications of this range of scenarios for
   media confidentially and authentication, and Section 4 outlines the
   implications for key exchange.  Section 5 outlines how the RTP
   framework meets the requirement of BCP 61.  Section 6 then concludes
   and gives some recommendations.  Finally, Section 7 outlines the
   security considerations, and Section 8 outlines IANA considerations.


2.  RTP Applications and Deployment Scenarios

   The range of application and deployment scenarios where RTP has been
   used includes, but is not limited to, the following:

   o  Point-to-point voice telephony (fixed and wireless networks)

   o  Point-to-point video conferencing

   o  Centralised group video conferencing with a multipoint conference
      unit (MCU)

   o  Any Source Multicast video conferencing (light-weight sessions;
      Mbone conferencing)

   o  Point-to-point streaming audio and/or video

   o  Single Source Multicast streaming to large group (IPTV and MBMS
      [2])

   o  Replicated unicast streaming to a group





Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             SRTP Not Mandatory                  July 2008


   o  Interconnecting components in music production studios and video
      editing suites

   o  Interconnecting components of distributed simulation systems

   o  Streaming real-time sensor data

   As can be seen, these scenarios vary from point-to-point to very
   large multicast groups, from interactive to non-interactive, and from
   low bandwidth (kilobits per second) to very high bandwidth (multiple
   gigabits per second).  While most of these applications run over UDP,
   some use TCP or DCCP as their transport.  Some run on highly reliable
   optical networks, others use low rate unreliable wireless networks.
   Some applications of RTP operate entirely within a single trust
   domain, others are inter-domain, with untrusted (and potentially
   unknown) users.  The range of scenarios is wide, and growing both in
   number and in heterogeneity.


3.  Implications for RTP Media Security

   The wide range of application scenarios where RTP is used has led to
   the development of multiple solutions for media security, considering
   different requirements.  Perhaps the most general of these solutions
   is the Secure RTP (SRTP) framework [3].  This is an application-level
   media security solution, encrypting the media payload data (not the
   RTP headers) to provide some degree of confidentiality, and providing
   optional source origin authentication.  It was carefully designed to
   be both low overhead, and to support the group communication features
   of RTP, across a range of networks.

   SRTP is not the only media security solution in use, however, and
   alternatives are more appropriate for some scenarios.  For example,
   many client-server streaming media applications run over a single TCP
   connection, multiplexing media data with control information on that
   connection (for example, on an RTSP connection).  The natural way to
   provide media security for such client-server media applications is
   to use TLS to protect the TCP connection, sending the RTP media data
   over the TLS connection.  Using the SRTP framework in addition to TLS
   is unncessary, and would result in double encryption of the media,
   and SRTP cannot be used instead of TLS since it is RTP-specific, and
   so cannot protect the control traffic.

   Finally, the link layer may be secure, and it may be known that the
   RTP media data is constrained to that single link (for example, when
   operating in a studio environment, with physical link security).  An
   environment like this is inherently constrained, but might avoid the
   need for application, transport, or network layer media security.



Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             SRTP Not Mandatory                  July 2008


   All these are application scenarios where RTP has seen commerical
   deployment.  Other use case also exist, with additional requirements.
   There is no media security protocol that is appropriate for all these
   environments.  Accordingly, multiple RTP media security protocols can
   be expected to remain in wide use.


4.  Implications for Key Management

   More diverse than the different use cases is the different protocols
   used for RTP session establishment.  Providing keying for these
   different session establishment can basically be put into two
   categories, inband and out-of-band in relation to the session
   establishment mechanism.  The requirement on these solution are
   highly varying.  Thus a wide range of solutions have been developed
   in this space:

   o  The most common use case for RTP is probably point-to-point voice
      calls or centralised group conferences, negotiated using SIP with
      the SDP offer/answer model, operating on a trusted infrastructure.
      In such environments, SDP security descriptions [4] or the MIKEY
      [5] protocol are appropriate keying mechanisms, piggybacked onto
      the SDP exchange.

   o  SIP/SDP with SIPS

   o  SIP/SDP with S/MIME

   o  Point-to-point RTP sessions may be negotiated using SIP with the
      offer/answer model, but operating over a network with untrusted
      infrastructure.  In such environments, the key management protocol
      is run on the media path, bypassing the untrusted infrastructure.
      Protocols such as ZRTP or DTLS protocols are useful here.

   o  For point-to-point client-server streaming of RTP over RTSP, a TLS
      association is appropriate to manage keying material, in much the
      same manner as would be used to secure an HTTP session.

   o  Email with SDP, secured using X.500 or PGP

   o  SDP file retrieved using HTTPS

   o  FLUTE using S/MIME to secure SDP

   o  SAP with SDP

   o  OMAs DRM keymanagement [6] with pointer from SDP for point to
      point streamingsetup with RTSP in 3GPP [7].



Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             SRTP Not Mandatory                  July 2008


   o  Usage of HTTP and MIKEY for key management in MBMS [8].

   A more detailed survey of requirements for media security management
   protocols can be found in [9].  As can be seen, the range of use
   cases is wide, and there is no single protocol that is appropriate
   for all scenarios.  These solutions have be further diversified by
   the existence of infrastructure elements such as authentication
   solutions that is tied into the key manangement.


5.  On the Requirement for Strong Security in IETF protocols

   BCP 61 [10] puts a requirement on IETF protocols to provide strong,
   mandatory to implement, security solutions.  This is actually quite a
   difficult requirement for any type of framework protocol, like RTP,
   since one can never know all the deployement scenarios, and if the
   security solution provided covers them.  It would clearly be
   desirable if a single media security solution and a single key
   management solution could be developed, satisfying the range of use
   cases for RTP.  The authors are not aware of any such solution,
   however, and it is not clear that any single solution can be
   developed.

   For a framework protocol it appears that the only sensible solution
   to the requirement of BCP 61 is to develop or use security building
   blocks, like SRTP, SDES, MIKEY, DTLS, or IPsec, to provide the basic
   security services of authorization, data integrity protocetion and
   date confidentiality protection.  When new usages of the RTP
   framework arise, one needs to analyze the situation, to determine of
   the existing building blocks satisfy the requirements.  If not, it is
   necessary to develop new security building blocks.

   When it comes to fulfilling the "MUST Implement" strong security for
   a specific application, it will fall on that application to actually
   consider what building blocks it is required to support.  To maximize
   interoperability it is desirable if certain applications, or classes
   of application with similar requirements, agree on what data security
   mechanisms and key-management should be used.  If such agreement is
   not possible, there will be increased cost, either in the lack of
   interoperability, or in the need to implement more solutions.
   Unfortunately this situation, if not handled reasonably well, can
   result in a failure to satisfy the requirement of providing the users
   with an option of turining on strong security when desired.


6.  Conclusions

   As discussed earlier it appears that a single solution can't be



Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             SRTP Not Mandatory                  July 2008


   designed meet the diverse requirements.  In the absense of such a
   solution, it is hoped that this memo explains why SRTP is not
   mandatory as the media security solution for RTP-based systems, and
   why we can expect multiple key management solutions for systems using
   RTP.

   In respect to the above it is important for any RTP-based application
   to consider how they meet the application's security requirements.
   This will requires some analysis to determine these requirements.
   Followed by a selection of preferably a single to mandatory to
   implement solution including the desired RTP traffic protection and
   key-management.  As SRTP can be used in a large number of use cases,
   it is a preferred solution for the protection of the RTP traffic, for
   those use cases where it is applicable.  Currently it is much harder
   to point out a preferred key-management solution.


7.  Security Considerations

   This entire memo is about security.


8.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are required.


9.  To Do

   Update references

   IPsec example


10.  Informative References

   [1]   Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
         "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
         RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [2]   3GPP, "Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS); Protocols
         and codecs TS 26.346".

   [3]   Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
         Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
         RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [4]   Andreasen, F., Baugher, M., and D. Wing, "Session Description



Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             SRTP Not Mandatory                  July 2008


         Protocol (SDP) Security Descriptions for Media Streams",
         RFC 4568, July 2006.

   [5]   Arkko, J., Lindholm, F., Naslund, M., Norrman, K., and E.
         Carrara, "Key Management Extensions for Session Description
         Protocol (SDP) and Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)",
         RFC 4567, July 2006.

   [6]   Open Mobile Alliance, "DRM Specification 2.0".

   [7]   3GPP, "Transparent end-to-end Packet-switched Streaming Service
         (PSS); Protocols and codecs TS 26.234".

   [8]   3GPP, "Security of Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service
         (MBMS) TS 33.246".

   [9]   Wing, D., Fries, S., Tschofenig, H., and F. Audet,
         "Requirements and Analysis of Media Security Management
         Protocols", draft-ietf-sip-media-security-requirements-02 (work
         in progress), January 2008.

   [10]  Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
         Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61, RFC 3365,
         August 2002.


Authors' Addresses

   Colin Perkins
   University of Glasgow
   Department of Computing Science
   Sir Alwyn Williams Building
   Lilybank Gardens
   Glasgow  G12 8QQ
   UK

   Email: csp@csperkins.org


   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Torshamgatan 23
   Stockholm  SE-164 80
   Sweden

   Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com





Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             SRTP Not Mandatory                  July 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Perkins & Westerlund    Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/