Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Fri, 04 November 2011 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3041F0C3C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.162
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.162 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i1hctEiHT9ER for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DBA21F8BD7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b3eae00000252a-5e-4eb41c0d778c
Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E9.24.09514.D0C14BE4; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:08:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.57]) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.53]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:08:29 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>, Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:08:28 +0100
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
Thread-Index: AcybDzGlugj6GQloShazNa07QiBZ5wAAx+o+
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058522357173BA@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <E37C139C5CB78244A781E9E7B721527B5485F6@USSCMB03.plt.plantronics.com> <CAErhfrwEZ86DCQOREhUQ2eMP99LKf2ausAvWbKYX5oj=_6YDyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAErhfrwNwd3NZmWb7L3+F72dBKi=mrhYJoMXkVREbXRXS8E-HA@mail.gmail.com>, <CALiegfkVir+qYbviNZdNMJ3ECCaGACPBLdN+dxH3f6Pk7W3s+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkVir+qYbviNZdNMJ3ECCaGACPBLdN+dxH3f6Pk7W3s+Q@mail.gmail.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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "Bran, Cary" <Cary.Bran@plantronics.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:08:31 -0000

Hi,

I don't think that the fact that SIP does not require media security has anything to do with telcos. It was a decision made by IETF to not specify any media plane requirements.

(It was also used as an argument in the good old SIP-vs-H.323 battle.)

Regards,

Christer

________________________________
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo [ibc@aliax.net]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 6:31 PM
To: Xavier Marjou
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org; Bran, Cary
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft


El 04/11/2011 15:20, "Xavier Marjou" <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00, which I fully support by the way.

Xavier, such draft does not propose that Webrtc must implement all the requirements in the draft. It just lists all the requirements needed in order to fully interoperate with current SIP deployments and opens the door for discussion about it.

So if you "fully support" this draft it means that you are just interested in making Webrtc to work with current SIP, regardless security requirements in the Web.

So let me know: do you support that browsers must implement g729? Do you support that webrtc requires not security at all in the media plane (like legacy SIP)?

If so, I dont think you care about Webrtc for the Web, but just for telcos. Behaviors like this one makes this WG to seem a telco party rather than a WG working for the Web. WebRTC means RTC for the Web, rather than Web for telcos, or that is what I hope.

Regards.