Re: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FE31AE17E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:59:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id twC0z1hnS-EU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE07F1AC829 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id y10so12140404wgg.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:59:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GrJq/6rwVWcq9SgIOZRLyzcTdMT/iF6+5LBKmlgPh8Q=; b=Rxm046h5nDlBQqXDSSLxieWxDt43iOecW/oAbq3vasM6l4xUzs8Lb9x/UuRU+FGFyw JypwPVFdioMW2P1BGvCnyHy3ik3+KPucAZ+HWlZKFcaWsynsd/khHV0qPXxL4BR06DLp Ave6mm/3T4TBYjve4PK0nFOoOyiIHypNRzEM/YiehsG6n3T85GDpssdvRkpQJdiWV/Ng 8xlZQRn8iUAUeG/WfcdkRUVRjdRbtEBiamLbV7tFQOeiS5wiivI/yjYJxmoYT7ud9xOX 55hsUjGC7cUpEUfdle0lY5tYTAONeztJiykAhEBYlfrrjwjxqAPZp0adWhpGLQ3ER1qg GpxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNrU91iWRbD5rJvd2VzBzVwaYa+x3DetlOrgFrB/dRyM2risYlaVOYkZFNY9fFSOPis2rJ
X-Received: by 10.194.236.199 with SMTP id uw7mr8611571wjc.63.1386097156812; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y20sm8065581wib.0.2013.12.03.10.59.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id en1so7029036wid.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:59:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.23.201 with SMTP id o9mr3820911wjf.67.1386097155444; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.88.133 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:59:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22436FC23@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
References: <CEAB0083.6FBE3%rmohanr@cisco.com> <5285E318.3090006@ericsson.com> <BLU169-W10885AF717BCBB60830502093E60@phx.gbl> <CABkgnnVpikDFwzfc=6CnHDOb6rmoe5-54AdYPyrbRvU34Epfig@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W11416B2C0D42888C078A7F493E60@phx.gbl> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2426E369@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CABkgnnU5RqbF-PPtihGU+rtuqemN9f7N7nXLB05_OpF7EmhxjQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C55D40B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2426EF4D@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C55D48D@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2426F209@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22436FC23@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:59:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtsZ8W_PxEHhMf55F6xpF0pJ8PtZygqhN5HMr0jejZPng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a956c9319dd04eca5e4e7
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 18:59:23 -0000

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal) <
mperumal@cisco.com> wrote:

> No, there is one difference when the peer is not sending any traffic (e.g
> VoD):
> For the STUN based mechanism, the peer is required to support only
> ICE-lite (or ICE) for the sender to verify consent freshness. With the DTLS
> based mechanism, the peer is required to support DTLS Heartbeat (RFC6520)
> and respond to HeartbeatRequest messages for the sender to verify consent
> freshness. That is asking more from legacy implementations.
>
>
For all practical purposes there are no legacy DTLS-SRTP implementations.
In most cases it is a new implementation for WebRTC anyway.
_____________
Roman Shpount