Fix docs crypto_policy_* -> srtp_crypto_policy_*

[Sean-Der]

No description provided.

[Sean-Der]

Just a doc change!

I am also writing a benchmark to compare protection profile performance (to encourage AEAD GCM usage in WebRTC). Does anyone have any existing numbers (or programs) to quickly compare! I am hoping that the hw-acceleration from using OpenSSL makes a significant improvement :)

thanks!

[pabuhler]

Thanks for the PR, I have approved it but will leave it unmerged for a bit in case others would like to reply to your questions. Personal I do not have any numbers on hand. But it would be interesting if you find some thing.

[fancycode]

Could you also change the typo here, while you're at it? strucutre -> structure
Thanks!

[Sean-Der]

Fixed!

[Sean-Der]

@pabuhler I did! Here are my results

-- aes_cm_128_hmac_sha1_32
./a.out  1.83s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 1.843 total
./a.out  1.84s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 1.856 total
./a.out  1.83s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 1.837 total
./a.out  1.82s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 1.831 total
./a.out  2.04s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 2.065 total
./a.out  1.82s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 1.834 total
./a.out  1.84s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 1.857 total
./a.out  1.83s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 1.843 total
./a.out  1.85s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 1.860 total
./a.out  1.83s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 1.839 total

-- aes_gcm_128_16
./a.out  0.76s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.772 total
./a.out  0.81s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.814 total
./a.out  0.75s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.762 total
./a.out  0.75s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 0.760 total
./a.out  0.76s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.765 total
./a.out  0.76s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.765 total
./a.out  0.79s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 0.803 total
./a.out  0.77s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 0.780 total
./a.out  0.75s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.762 total
./a.out  0.79s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 0.796 total

Hopefully the test isn't bad either, just pulled it together quickly. https://gist.github.com/Sean-Der/7a42bd70edfe1324ccc6ab399d653c0e

If you are interested the conversation is happening on rtcweb now, would love your input/support there if interested :)

[pabuhler]

@Sean-Der interesting numbers. The only thing I would do different is to use aes_cm_128_hmac_sha1_80 instead of aes_cm_128_hmac_sha1_32 as I feel that is the most common cm cipher in use and then try with data packets of 1024 bytes to see if that makes a different.
I will merge your change now which will effectively close this PR and this discussion.