Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 09 September 2011 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 C4A3021F84BC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.499, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 6vWzwq9gw1Td for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2625E21F84A5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.85]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p89GVb7Z014676 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:31:37 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1315585897; bh=1DkJppDrM5V6Wv2xPkH2ifwsyxY=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=mGJjZSPqogYj6fVIQlAkVSaOIU1g3XzBOtqGBi6l+sxnlNsoJ3oSieGZrYLV1tG85 ESx7+2CCSGcRrimD6z7mg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=suGvJVctMUYatnC6TDhauZZx88NIqELrRFhrEb1NvbrJDtJOLWC/fWOLt3NAsPgrp 6l3zG9Tx3OuCHUU8UbkoA==
Received: from gyb11 (gyb11.prod.google.com [10.243.49.75]) by wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p89GVZHs011208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:31:35 -0700
Received: by gyb11 with SMTP id 11so277535gyb.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=1NQKjkx5IXybV00BIGxlaOFHZnAogd8Uq0QUjhK3nQA=; b=p9iF6Oww2LTfbRqWDIky0yGDrloEhl/bLBeO7xdC/rw/kLdMVPNcdeXiNOjgRsa2Ct b56m9JrVPfVUu+zV/INw==
Received: by 10.42.134.2 with SMTP id j2mr1224459ict.149.1315585895666; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.134.2 with SMTP id j2mr1224431ict.149.1315585894134; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.36.10 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC8230339CA68F054@BE235.mail.lan>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <89177AB2-F721-47E4-8471-2180EDA10615@voxeo.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB34D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <496EE152-41F2-49AB-A136-05735FE5A9F9@voxeo.com> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E540FE2.7020605@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106423F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net> <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F086B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E666926.8050705@skype.net> <43A0D702-1D1F-4B4E-B8E6-C9F1A06E3F8A@edvina.net> <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7020E64DC@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <E4EC1B17-0CC4-4F79-96DD-84E589FCC4F0@edvina.net> <4E67C3F7.7020304@jesup.org> <BE60FA11-8FFF-48E5-9F83-4D84A7FBE2BE@vidyo.com> <4E67F003.6000108@jesup.org> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233E8554C@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC8230339CA68F054@BE235.mail.lan>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:31:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2u0UuNXh7bzmZFwiSucbsh=Ps=C3ZM5M3cJrXRmZgODA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8dbae4344804ac84b55f
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
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, 09 Sep 2011 16:29:44 -0000

This feels like a pretty fundamental question. I thought we were getting
pretty close to a consensus for the signaling mechanism with Cullen's
presentation, but this seems to complicate that significantly.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> wrote:

> Indeed.
>
> More generally, the question is: should it be possible to send an offer
> that by default does DTLS/SAVPF for RTCWeb, but also can fall back to other
> RTP profiles to support legacy devices?
>
> If yes, then either browsers need to support CapNeg, or RTCWeb needs to use
> something other than SDP Offer/Answer.
>
> If no, then supporting interop, without a media gateway, with other
> non-RTCWeb modes (e.g., no ICE, no rtcp mux, no audio/video mux, etc.)
> becomes IMO a lot less compelling.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 2:35 AM
> To: Randell Jesup; Jonathan Lennox
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: AVPF [was: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
>
>
> Hi,
>
> >>>You could make forced-encryption the default, and allow the
> >>>application control over whether to allow it is turned off for
> >>>specific cases, like a PSTN call, or under the server's control.
> >>>Signalling is secure, so it could even use a direct optional
> >>>downgrade from SAVP* to AVP* (i.e.
> >>>similar to the best-effort-strp draft)
> >>This has implications for the parallel thread about the use of SDP
> >>offer/answer.
> >>
> >>The solution MMUSIC has standardized for best-effort SRTP is SDP
> >>CapNeg, RFC 5939.  Do we want to require CapNeg support in browsers?
> >
> >Yeah, ok, I'm not going there.  :-)  It's probably not needed for this
> >use-case anyways.
>
> The same question exists for AVPF, which has been suggested to be mandated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>