Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn-00.txt

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 10 April 2014 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 A05BD1A0049 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] 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 x9DtqGANRE_C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3851A0169 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C767C5197 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:52:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oFT19JM53rgM for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:52:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:7646:a0ff:fe90:e2bb]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 386EF7C5191 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:52:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <53465BCC.9030807@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:52:28 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <20140409180350.13315.51677.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABkgnnUfT_bRmFW7j09yWJPEOCz9xEjKjbHa=FXK284aEnyDyQ@mail.gmail.com> <53459BBB.1080505@alum.mit.edu> <CABkgnnUqyS71bT-PFBjJG5zSi_0Z-4E025Ez2MrbROXP7ZcH7w@mail.gmail.com> <5345B3EB.4050108@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5345B3EB.4050108@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/7XjEa4KBgXAHmbkId-w1HLv4AuY
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn-00.txt
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: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:52:34 -0000

On 04/09/2014 10:56 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 4/9/14 3:52 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 9 April 2014 12:12, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> But what is the *protocol*? I don't see that mentioned in the draft 
>>> at all.
>>
>> There are two.  Those two are described (perhaps not explicitly
>> enough) in the list in Section 2.
>
> Not explicitly enough, IMO.
>
>>> IIUC it must be the multiplexing of STUN, SRTP, and SCTP over DTLS. 
>>> (Maybe
>>> not STUN - maybe that is *below* or *beside* DTLS.) I see how it 
>>> could make
>>> sense to use ALPN to verify that this is the intended use of the DTLS
>>> session. But that isn't even mentioned in the draft.
>>
>> Yeah, STUN isn't inside DTLS, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to
>> "negotiate" its use.
>>
>>> And, from a protocol perspective, what is the difference between 
>>> webrtc and
>>> c-webrtc? AFAICT this is just two different usages of the same 
>>> "protocol",
>>> not two different protocols.
>>
>> Yep.  But that's what a protocol is.
>
> Not in my book. I expect two different protocols to look different on 
> the wire.
>
> You seem to be saying that SMTP used to talk to ietf mailing lists is 
> a different protocol from SMTP used to talk to my lawyer, because I 
> expect my lawyer to keep the communications confidential.

(not to be taken as a comment on the proposal, because I haven't 
read/understood it yet)

an adequate parallel would be SMTP (used for MTA-to-MTA relay on port 
25) and SUBMIT (used for message submission on port 587).

They are identical on the wire (apart from an extension in the EHLO 
response), but have different purposes, and are therefore called 
different protocols.