Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new: draft-holmberg-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel

Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Fri, 23 August 2019 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5693120800 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 03:01:51 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 uuIJkxTJDsmc for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 03:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bin-mail-out-05.binero.net (bin-mail-out-05.binero.net [195.74.38.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17AC5120251 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 03:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Halon-ID: 01c82693-c58d-11e9-903a-005056917f90
Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Received: from [192.168.2.136] (unknown [88.129.173.120]) by bin-vsp-out-02.atm.binero.net (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 01c82693-c58d-11e9-903a-005056917f90; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:01:44 +0200 (CEST)
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <49749CEF-41E8-4E87-8CC6-938DBDA0CEE7@ericsson.com> <CAOW+2duTuUc8FXT-BEhJioUnPsOkzYJddK=xAp1oWiBQCKM2vg@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3161874ED292FA17015EF95E93AE0@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <665185b6-c1e7-62c3-4e3b-e9374d23bfd5@omnitor.se> <DF010721-81CD-40DE-A848-DE4D36836FDA@ericsson.com> <ED158CF5-E059-482B-8D7E-934BA2C753A1@ericsson.com> <2201665d-5054-1872-d208-a0fe2d26095c@omnitor.se> <VI1PR07MB3167055C995D17D4BA9E36DE93A50@VI1PR07MB3167.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=c3=b6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Message-ID: <8d14b055-8405-4a4f-174d-d7580bea348c@omnitor.se>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:01:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB3167055C995D17D4BA9E36DE93A50@VI1PR07MB3167.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/1XVMO8ZeRus8F78cZ_OYMwE1IyU>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new: draft-holmberg-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:01:52 -0000

Den 2019-08-22 kl. 22:55, skrev Christer Holmberg:
> Hi,
>
>> I want to add one issue for the security section: Can we specify a way to achieve end-to-end encryption of T.140 >data between a WebRTC endpoint and a traditional SIP/RFC 4103 endpoint through a gateway? I know that that is a >desired feature.
> How would you do that? The data channel uses DTLS encryption, and SIP/RFC 4103 uses SRTP encryption, so doesn't the gateway have to decrypt/encrypt the T.140 traffic?

I have just heard the requirement to have end-to-end encryption of RTT, 
I do not have the solution. One possibility would maybe be to have media 
encryption end-to-end as well as the two transport encryptions. But that 
complicates the possibility to insert the missing text markers by the 
gateway if text loss is detected.

/Gunnar

>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
> Den 2019-08-22 kl. 16:28, skrev Christer Holmberg:
>> I have created a pull request, which will be used for the changes based on Gunnar's comments:
>>
>> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=f453465c-a88743e3-f45306c7-868f633d
>> bf25-4deb49c05b8a2375&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcdh4u%2Fdraft-d
>> atachannel-t140%2Fpull%2F5
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> On 22/08/2019, 13.39, "mmusic on behalf of Christer Holmberg" <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; wrote:
>>
>>       Hi Gunnar,
>>       
>>       Thanks you for your support (I assume :) and comments on the draft!
>>       
>>       See inline.
>>         
>>       >A couple of comments:
>>       >1) In 3.2, the attribute "cps" is misspelled "cpc" once.
>>       
>>       Will fix.
>>       
>>       ---
>>       
>>       >2) Section 5 has some historical references to real-time text transports that may not be of much interest anymore
>>       >and instead confuse the reader, while some other more relevant transports may be added.
>>       
>>       I took these from the schwarz draft. You probably know better
>> than me which ones are relevant, so feel to suggest which one(s)
>> should be removed, and which one(s) should be be added :)
>>       
>>       >I would also like to discuss if it could be possible to have a few general recommendations on the webrtc to sip/rfc4103 case without
>>       >the problems you see with having a detailed gateway section.
>>       
>>       The second last paragraph covers some things on the media plane (out of order and loss of RTP packets) that I think are worth mentioning.
>>       
>>       As far as SDP interworking is concerned, this draft defines the m- line for T.140 data channel, and RFC 4103 defines the m- line for T.140 RTP, and the interworking should be very straight forwards. Do you have something specific in mind regarding general recommendations?
>>       
>>       ---
>>       
>>       > 3) Reliability. Section 3.1 implies that the channel is used in the reliable and ordered mode. We have been discussing back and forth
>>       > if that is the right choice for real-time text. I tend to think it is, but it might be useful to discuss it once again. The traditional user
>>       > requirement on real-time text is that produced characters shall be presented to the receiver within one second from their creation.
>>       > Modern usage in speech-to-text applications may require more rapid transmission. As I understand it, the reliable mode of the
>>       > data channel may imply long periods of choked transmission in case of network problems or by influence of heavy transmission
>>       > in another channel. As long as this happens only in case of network problems, I now tend to think that that might be acceptable.
>>       > The effects of being forced to use an unreliable channel are so far-going so I would like to avoid that.
>>       > However, the word "reliable" is misleading. A "reliable" channel is not really reliable. It can break in case of problems.
>>       
>>       True, but "reliable" is the terminology used in both RFC 4960 (SCTP) and draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel.
>>       
>>       > I think some recommendations should be inserted in section 4 about what to do when a channel breaks. The natural action
>>       > would be for both sides to try to figure out what was the last T.140 data that was transmitted and received, and then try to
>>       > reconnect and resume transmission if successful. If any T.140 data was lost during the break, that state should be marked
>>       > by inserting the "missing data" T.140 indicator in the received stream. There needs of course also be a recommended action
>>       > if it turns out to be impossible to reconnect after a low number of retries.
>>       
>>       I can for sure add some text about that. Are there generic T.140 recommendations for failure that we can reference, or do you think there is something T.140 data channel specific?
>>       
>>       Regards,
>>       
>>       Christer
>>       
>>       
>>       _______________________________________________
>>       mmusic mailing list
>>       mmusic@ietf.org
>>       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>       
>>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Gunnar Hellström
> Omnitor
> gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
> +46 708 204 288
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
+46 708 204 288