Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)

Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk> Mon, 14 November 2011 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <neils@vipadia.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 27D5E21F8E03 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:39:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 qHiHPYIxfUs4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:39:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8511E21F8E01 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:39:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iaeo4 with SMTP id o4so9023049iae.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:39:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.20.201 with SMTP id g9mr4960759ibb.57.1321259943710; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:39:03 -0800 (PST)
Sender: neils@vipadia.com
Received: by 10.231.207.10 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:39:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3w4t0oYKs+01srAmPGziYt6vVZNOQwbpZ7YWUFZtP20w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B7FD@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A105@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804691DA2@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <CALiegfmf59jb4asUu9LA6YY_aMtKEnM1Wy34KbuLEn3_h1xBXA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmM1PB=VAQjfh4rW3-3C8aumHdWy9nZxD0-BWBq9Kq_tg@mail.gmail.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3BA57@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <CALiegfkWnRT8m4S9pXTxuLsc-p_bhkG3d=PX3qgiFFt5gW5yfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvQYVKOZF88WLCiRseg-qXQdOpKeDU_t9b-yA2GcDBT-w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOiPxz_swdaG6Aqoch1WAUtjNh4eOQy1QObCDXT_B8azg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtp+LQBRCHgbWdJyrSRcpNQ82i64TJgGtGPrE7+GKcEog@mail.gmail.com> <4EBC3475.90706@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxu_-+ZRsqpUBkFSj=tYtOKG0pK3JoQTZHwQGMuBCnp0Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuaWJ3SBv+0gac6EQy6-Lsb-LS_SBXk5FqObKy4mN6wNg@mail.gmail.com> <CCF4FC92-D5AA-43C8-A0B2-8041C9B8E1BD@edvina.net> <CAD5OKxs-pWwDBjwAu=mQVWRZa4H_YPpzQ31=0qxUUj-pJOErcg@mail.gmail.com> <A2DFC694-DBDF-4DB4-8DE0-DD638C7AF2BE@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfkU1qhLmhY9L373pF7j9zwHipFfu4mAuY49RDTNL7V5Vg@mail.gmail.com> <C11CACFE-FE5A-43F2-8B61-6ABC9965B7FC@acmepacket.com> <CAOJ7v-3w4t0oYKs+01srAmPGziYt6vVZNOQwbpZ7YWUFZtP20w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:39:03 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cPrLZ8l6XLjR3G5-qQKX3ir5hWM
Message-ID: <CABRok6mJx+quBzdzRZ8fX774+kj-ABWJJvPB=P7=7R5s=ZA2Yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175ce0d899d01e04b1adcdb8
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:39:05 -0000

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

>
> As a non-"telco" participant in this WG, I strongly agree with this. DTMF
> has a clear upside (support for PSTN) and no downside other than the need
> for a new API method.
>

This is my concern, that we are proposing a codec specific API method when
we have ruled out exposing APIs for other codecs.

If two peers have negotiated a data channel between them it doesn't make a
lot of sense to send DTMF over RTP, it should be carried over the reliable
data channel. So if we do expose an API for sending tones, can it be done
in such a way that it can be carried using whatever the most appropriate
transport is? (obviously without requiring any javascript changes - because
we can't expect javascript developers to upgrade)

Neil