Re: [MMUSIC] [rtcweb] Tunnelling DTLS in SDP

Quick questions for folks …  is an idea that we should explore a bit deeper before making decisions about it? or should we not proceed? or should we proceed? Just looking for feedback on where this should go next 

Thanks, Cullen

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com <mailto:roman@telurix.com>> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
> I wanted to call your attention to a draft I just published with a possibly stupid
> idea.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-dtls-in-sdp-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-dtls-in-sdp-00>
> 
> A nontrivial fraction of call setup time in WebRTC is the DTLS handshake.
> This document describes how to piggyback the first few handshake messages
> in the SDP offer/answer exchange, thus reducing latency.
> 
> Comments welcome.
> 
> 
> One other issue I thought off was that with DTLS SDP either offerer or answerer can start a new DTLS association. When answerer starts a new session it will have exactly the same problems as forking, since this will create multiple DTLS sessions with the same client random. This can be solved with some sort of fallback mechanism to either regular DTLS setup or to sending a ClientHello in the answer.
> 
> Regards,
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>  
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb