IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Off-topic: making WebRTC work in practice (Re: a brief pondering)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 06 April 2020 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CF13A0ACC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YZvz2gZes1d2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 724873A0B0E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640683897A; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:21:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6558583; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Off-topic: making WebRTC work in practice (Re: a brief pondering)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiiNY=skFAgqAVnybHBLoKssyXgCFuVCrmdck5eMsM_iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fd6b7ee2-cdbe-14a1-0087-ce61282b22f6@lear.ch> <29D0DCA7-1D72-428F-A6DD-05511D90C039@cable.comcast.com> <31A798F0-9DE0-4231-A768-76BA9A1A2180@tzi.org> <E1FD746D-0BCD-4ECC-BB9B-75DFA05AA9DC@tzi.org> <C9836670-02D6-4A01-8BD2-9F7FDBC990E5@iii.ca> <cce76641-a2d9-a3d6-4d59-55cf2ca31abe@alvestrand.no> <20200405164223.GS88064@kduck.mit.edu> <8EAE0555-F97E-4EFC-A99B-A8F0113C5FA9@gmail.com> <014901d60b9f$ebf75990$c3e60cb0$@acm.org> <37688278-b70e-e10d-1aea-cfa3dfa81334@network-heretics.com> <CAMm+LwiiNY=skFAgqAVnybHBLoKssyXgCFuVCrmdck5eMsM_iA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 11:23:28 -0400
Message-ID: <8026.1586186608@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4A_QXvOH6peBK6vHzFGHOLTLhd0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:24:35 -0000

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
    > We need an open standard for such a client. Because that is the only way
    > users can be assured the client they are downloading hasn't got a backdoor.
    > It isn't a perfect guarantee but it is better than the situation I have now
    > where my messaging provider reconfigures its app every ten days or so.
    > Being forced to install code updates from a single source is a security
    > risk in itself. And don't tell me that frequent updates are necessary for
    > security, if the code is so buggy it has to have an urgent security patch
    > more than once a month, you are doing it wrong.

This.

Lots of people have explained why XMPP sucks, but I prefer the suck I know
and foster some competition without a fork-lift upgrade, to the single source
of code (no matter how "open" source it is).

I don't think that the IETF is going to get anywhere with standardized video
conferencing.
I don't think W3C will either (I think they have less of a chance actually).

WebRTC is a good start, and I'm happier with javascript I have to download
and trust than native code I have to download.

Having said this, eating our own dogfood is really important.
IPv6, webrtc, QUIC, TLS1.3.

I understand from this thread that webrtc solutions can *not* send p2p
streams between end points?  I find this surprising, since I observe failures
in webrtc which seem to be lack of a clear n X n media flow.
(Alice and Bob can talk, and Alice and Carmen can talk, but Bob and Carmen can't talk)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email