Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC-SIP interop: and why SDES-SRTP is a need

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 F20E421F8750 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.375
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_BIZOP=0.7]
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 gEsWOvPQhjmt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF7621F8732 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so502935pbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=yz5eiyCMnmFGJeALxNhXcnACfDjMYIWRD29jKi9Hyb8=; b=CAmtOi/1xwlJZcc6TDF+m1zTR73dpreR+0eu3eIDAQlUkbeJnE8CnjKhl45wDFhYnY dA1YZNCF2OeyyJnDoSP4p1gKiTpNoMbu+GnqDKjCkr/Ab6HrCzKv78RmV2/vEu+Q+jfY J+kjaHcqEuJ27lix/9s1BfrQ6AFjd2mAcY3wXypPGJPpbnVzBX2QDzSb5COUkeGeVcYY DJ33/G3QwNoFYgCCeYI0CwM8NE81e3E39d3MVpXzKCHMgyZMJSFQnr0zqI19YelnNn62 rTAQP0k3YWwRf1Ztwrt5uDZwf2d4UyQEh8h2Dp+G7Tm+t0lOiFaNIoU96Q94HVYQlJk6 5YTw==
Received: by 10.68.230.8 with SMTP id su8mr242090pbc.105.1333560282428; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (mail-pz0-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d2sm1028282pbw.39.2012.04.04.10.24.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dady13 with SMTP id y13so731977dad.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.191.69 with SMTP id gw5mr39388626pbc.141.1333560279519; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.6.67 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfnA8_ntYd5f935P_E6vvMwjrzt+j6UhB9vjmo6h-RzfPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfmz6tgm9WF3KWEK5qwaBGADKFyit=egB36zkjZXNKdeHw@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnA8_ntYd5f935P_E6vvMwjrzt+j6UhB9vjmo6h-RzfPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:24:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsxrDdsoV18KB1gZSsUBPno-k2zs4E2FTUaoUBdXfh5yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb208dcbf527804bcddb251"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmsLh02oVgdNOFeAOQbj1n6fm2gYUbFO9loKVC01yFNaC988a1wqkhu5hDWRGmkydYFF1Z2
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC-SIP interop: and why SDES-SRTP is a need
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:24:44 -0000

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> Hi, nobody cares about the implications of option 2 ???
>
> Do all the people planning to interop with SIP assume that they'll
> need the super B2BUA in the second image (without the possibility of
> using a pure SIP proxy)?:
>
>  http://public.aliax.net/WebRTC/WebRTC_SIP_Interop_DTLS-EKT-SRTP.png
>
>
<sarcasm>I guess we should look at this as a business opportunity ;) I am
not sure why you assume that building such gateway would take 10 years. I
can sell a gateway like this to anybody who needs it right now.</sarcasm>

My assumption is that IP phones will migrate to WebRTC effectively
eliminating SIP in end user devices. The only place where SIP will remain
would be federation, which commonly uses some sort of SBC anyway. This SBC
will need to be extended to support ICE anyway. Might as well through in
support for DTLS-EKV-SRTP. I doubt it will map DTLS key updates to
re-invites. Most probably it will simply re-encode.

______________
Roman Shpount