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

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 05 April 2012 09:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE7F21F86A2 for <>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 02:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.273
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yekpbeVK3c+X for <>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 02:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DA421F8656 for <>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 02:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so739724wgb.13 for <>; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 02:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=dEDVm7siMDRzMw71wG9IE/HDYQ4FBxPBq8P1pBcq8eU=; b=K1i7wbAqeszbgN1b2NhhY0mfRoMYa8cJjKoYHCJzcr0/nF3d6Qi6Y/yGmAyIaQgvuw 7mKZeEoKOZ9IdvtGIUZWyMHx/e1yxMX/jjP8q0b/CwRS/WXQ3QejGVCs9iLeMKp1JTWn xQS3cxdcl5Fn4nj4dJuFwPdyK3b0taldKgDnwGsXVhLOBqKRzGql4hpI+ImNs9nllklW 3hY1VGoRW+IboYmwXrrh9qsSKnhTGz+HKd4XhBP6JhRXb8kbJmzMgTGfpIpWUq3Xym76 Xe1+FOG+yn/zfPmCNLWI43WBkK/Qljt9dyOoafzKjp5twO9coYcEGtjkXNkOIA/815GR Lwtg==
Received: by with SMTP id f5mr2906616wiz.18.1333617076424; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 02:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windows8d787f9 ([]) by with ESMTPS id k6sm12035317wie.9.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 05 Apr 2012 02:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: "'Roman Shpount'" <>, "'jesse'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:09:50 +0300
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D8_01CD1325.01F65150"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac0S0c7D4fm9hja5TUimMgrQ+AzougAOOveA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC-SIP interop: and why SDES-SRTP is a need
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:11:18 -0000


I think that your point of view about IP PBX that need to support RTCweb is
interesting but the problem is that RTCweb is not the application, it is an
enabler, so you may see multiple applications servers that will offer
communication services (like Skype, MS Messenger, Google), so I am wondering
if the IP PBX will need to peer with all of them or will the application
servers peer with the IP PBXs using SIP as was proposed in RTCweb. 

Roni Even



From: [] On Behalf Of
Roman Shpount
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 5:14 AM
To: jesse
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC-SIP interop: and why SDES-SRTP is a need


On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:42 PM, jesse <> wrote:

On Apr 4, 2012 10:24 AM, "Roman Shpount" <> wrote:
> My assumption is that IP phones will migrate to WebRTC effectively
eliminating SIP in end user devices.

That is your academic assumption, why does IT department need to spend extra
money to either desert or upgrade its existing SIP devices without
substantial gain? After all, tons of users are still using window xp.

Backward capability is a key to the success of new technology.

Please note the <sarcasm> tags. 

On the more serious note, very few SIP end points offer working ICE support.
So, in a large sense, interop with them is not an option. Out of the ones
that do support ICE and SRTP, very few are actually connected directly to a
public internet. Most of them are connected to some sort of PBX or an IP PBX
type service. So, in reality you do not need to bridge every IP phone with
WebRTC. If a few PBX and hosted centrex vendors will add support for WebRTC
required features, we will get compatibility with existing end points. To
support the rest you will need to deploy some sort of gateway.

In my personal opinion, tons of users use XP due to the fact that never MS
OS versions do not offer a significant reason to upgrade, while introducing
enough usability and operational issues to create a significant upgrade
hurdle (I am trying to be politically correct here). WebRTC enabled end
points, on the other hand, will offer significant benefits to traditional
SIP phones, since they will allow development of higher quality integrated
real time communications services. I hope this will drive a much quicker
standard adoption.
Roman Shpount