IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [payload] draft-ramalho-payload-g7110-00 to be discussedinAVTEXT

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Wed, 27 July 2011 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: payload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D8711E8120 for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.461
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5XHsfDhOETQM for <payload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6483911E813F for <payload@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:52:56 -0400
Received: from mailbox1.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.12]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:52:56 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <mramalho@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:52:54 -0400
Thread-Topic: [payload] draft-ramalho-payload-g7110-00 to be discussedinAVTEXT
Thread-Index: AcxMlsb5uEnb5ioIRXSGynMapV7m8A==
Message-ID: <D584522C-A7E0-4CBA-B1C4-CD70E96EA1BF@acmepacket.com>
References: <DCD4D03D-93A3-4EC9-A099-F22D92DE4BAC@acmepacket.com> <999109E6BC528947A871CDEB5EB908A0044E2EEB@XMB-RCD-209.cisco.com><CDB75F50-9298-4711-8C0B-968B47D3EE10@acmepacket.com> <4E2F0103.7020108@digium.com> <999109E6BC528947A871CDEB5EB908A0044E30DA@XMB-RCD-209.cisco.com> <ED81C4E8-8666-42D4-80DF-424A186D145B@acmepacket.com> <999109E6BC528947A871CDEB5EB908A0044E3439@XMB-RCD-209.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <999109E6BC528947A871CDEB5EB908A0044E3439@XMB-RCD-209.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAUA=
Cc: "payload@ietf.org" <payload@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [payload] draft-ramalho-payload-g7110-00 to be discussedinAVTEXT
X-BeenThere: payload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Payloads working group discussion list <payload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload>
List-Post: <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload>, <mailto:payload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:53:01 -0000

On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Michael Ramalho (mramalho) wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com] 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a particular codec or payload transform is
> lossless or not, from the perspective of SDP and RTP.  SRTP
> encrypt/decrypt and authentication is also completely "lossless".  You
> could, in theory, do SRTP between two middleboxes.
> 
> MAR: Not even in theory .. but also in practice!

Yes, exactly - they do it in *practice*, but SBCs don't do it by "not telling the endpoints" or hiding stuff, because the SBCs *are* the endpoints from the perspective of SDP and IP/UDP/RTP.  The "real" endpoints (namely your phones) don't know SRTP happened in the middle, and they don't know transcoding G.711<->G.729 happened either, etc., but the phones not the real endpoints from the perspective of IP, UDP, RTP, nor SDP - only from a human perspective.

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email