SRTP_AES256 is added according draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-00 #580
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
These profiles were removed in later drafts and do not appear in the published RFC 5764. A quick search found only a single page of search results, and only a single github project that has the profiles (which it incorrectly documents as appearing in RFC 5764). Please justify your claim that they are widely used in SRTP. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
SRTP_AES256 is added according draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-00
Both SRTP_AES256_CM_HMAC_SHA1_80 and SRTP_AES256_CM_HMAC_SHA1_32 are widely used in SRTP
Only new items are added to the "Enum" Class
How has this been tested?
Only new items are added to the "Enum" Class. I believe it has no effect
Checklist before requesting a review
See also Contributing Guidelines.