IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.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 267BA21F992F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 zNsoh3BaMYRQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp004.apm-internet.net (smtp004.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3712D21F9916 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 93059 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2013 13:29:13 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp004.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 26 Apr 2013 13:29:13 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E051A18A0535; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:29:12 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [192.67.4.33] (unknown [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA75718A04CE; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:29:12 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <517A7FF3.9050702@matthew.at>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:29:13 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <41A36FC7-9F29-45E6-8B98-4B3AB51094CD@phonefromhere.com>
References: <3FA2E46D-C98E-4FC0-9F1D-AD595A861CE1@iii.ca> <74300615-2293-4DCE-82A7-475F1A5A8256@gmail.com> <91B4F744-2201-4361-A8D8-7D36F47B865C@cisco.com> <CALiegfnqW26gEMYNpjJyzu=Nd6z9wCjvZbuY1N2tYvbfQiHyPA@mail.gmail.com> <95219856-8365-4A7E-BD0B-4EECE8868498@phonefromhere.com> <517A7FF3.9050702@matthew.at>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
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, 26 Apr 2013 13:29:16 -0000

On 26 Apr 2013, at 14:24, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 4/26/2013 6:16 AM, Tim Panton wrote:
>> 
>> On 26 Apr 2013, at 12:37, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> 
>>> Such a solution requires a very expensive gateway. Good for vendors but bad for all the rest.
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't understand why the DTLS gateway would be so expensive. It is _exactly_ the same
>> (conceptually) as the ICE processing - you filter off a few UDP packets from the stream, do some
>> stuff, send replies then once you are happy you punt some dynamic settings back up to the (s)rtp
>> layer.
>> 
> 
> The CPU-seconds of cryptography required are markedly different, especially on low-end processors used by some of the distributed gateway solutions.

True, but only at call set-up time, not for the life of the call. I'd want to see numbers on this before we select to adopt even 
more complexity for the sake of a theoretical legacy interop requirement.

T.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email