Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture

Magnus Westerlund <> Tue, 18 June 2013 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C66E21F9B95 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.066
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.183, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zI0qCK1ypGH2 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5D921F96F5 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9e6d000002643-d9-51c02eab022b
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AA.A7.09795.BAE20C15; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:55:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:55:53 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:56:56 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hadriel Kaplan <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre5qvQOBBlO26Vh82vSJ2WLtv3Z2 ByaPJUt+Mnl8fHqLJYApitsmKbGkLDgzPU/fLoE74+mHmYwFG9QrDv36z97AeE2+i5GTQ0LA ROLAmQlsELaYxIV764FsLg4hgVOMEktubmOHcJYzSqx/3c0OUsUroC0xc/o3JhCbRUBV4vKr FywgNpuAhcTNH41gk0QFgiWObN/MAlEvKHFy5hMgm4NDREBP4ug9TpAws4CwxIaLbWAlwgKW Ej3db5ghdp1mktgx6ycjSIJTwE7i4PITrBDXSUpsedHODtGsJzHlagsjhC0v0bx1NjOILQR0 W0NTB+sERqFZSFbPQtIyC0nLAkbmVYzsuYmZOenl5psYgeF6cMtvgx2Mm+6LHWKU5mBREuf9 dGpXoJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OEMEl1cBYbv7PJtsljq3hE/exQg+Ln+l+0iK3 dm16Oz1s5W7zlVknfa7/iC8T13iepW9Zc2S/3iGxfP6Up5a/3snm3hHtXvrj90Pf9aHHIkvy Lk1oy1qq+DM6+csRSeacsvUPDz+yOyi+I/PNBAN57Qv3rxtXbV3n/NMjsFlr4/bVzO+zDDUL BDSkjiorsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAdNGbmyoCAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:56:09 -0000

Hadirel and WG,

Please see my response inline.

On 2013-06-14 18:58, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> You can't be serious. There was exactly ONE email asking for agenda
> items, here: 
> It
> was sent on May 30th.  It gave a generous 6 days to respond.  Luckily
> no one ever goes on vacation for longer than 5 days. Instead, two
> people sent a response on June 10th, a tremendous 11 days after the
> request.  Outrageous!  That's a almost twice as long as they were
> given!
> Thank goodness the chairs detected this monstrous breach of
> procedure, and thwarted the attempts of anarchy!  I mean if people
> are allowed to respond to emails so tardily, how can we be expected
> to get things accomplished as quickly as they've so far been in this
> WG?!?

Yes, we have only sent a single email this time, being the second round
in a short time we tried to schedule this meeting.

> Sure, an interim for this topic has been waiting for many months if
> not a whole year, and now that people didn't respond in 6 days but
> took instead 11 days the topic will be delayed indefinitely yet
> again... but that's no excuse for blatantly flaunting the rules!

Yes, there has been difficult finding a time could work for this
meeting. That was why the agenda request time was short.

> Personally I saw the email on May 30th, and assumed Oscar and Dan
> would respond to you for agenda time.  I assumed that if no one had
> submitted agenda items to you, that the WG Chairs would send out an
> email warning about that, or perhaps even directly email the people
> who they expected to submit agenda items.

Yes, you assumed that someone would respond. Rather than you reaching
out to verify that others would drive the question for you. Hadriel you
are apparently very interested in this topic. Why don't you ensure that
an agenda topic is on the agenda for Berlin? The WG chairs are happy to
receive agenda requests already now.

>> If you want to discuss this, write a draft describing how how your 
>> additional keying is to be integrated, what the pro and cons of it.
>> That will enable direct discussion of a proposal. The WG clearly
>> are opinionated on this matter, but apparently don't have energy to
>> produce proposals.
> There *are* drafts. 
> There
> are even powerpoint slides, sent to the chairs the last time this
> meeting almost happened but didn't.

One of those drafts has been expired since February I would like to
point out.

The looking at these drafts, they are neither a proposal for what to
actually do. Dan Wing's draft is argument in general why SDES would be
bad for security. Oscar Ohlsson's is an argument for why a number of
potential risks are not a serious issue and what the other gains of
using security descriptions are.

>From my perspective I really would like to see some progress in at least
the proposal for actually adding additional keying to ensure that the
raised issues in drafts or earlier WG meetings and email discussions are
meet. Additionally I would really like to see some more details for how
the actual integration of an additional keying mechanism is supposed to

> I think the problem must be that those things weren't signed in
> triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to
> public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three
> months and recycled as firelighters.

No, that is not it. This topic has dragged on for various reasons. Yes
we chairs are clearly to blame for some of them, like being slow to
attempt to schedule a meeting. However, after that there has been issues
finding a suitable time where sufficient mass of people could
participate. There has been time conflicts with other meetings resulting
in a cancellation, which in hind sight was unnecessary. Then a
rescheduling, lurk warm response from the WG, limited agenda items and
another almost collision resulting another cancellation.

I am sorry that this makes you frustrated. Well, it makes also me
frustrated. I wished this topic was dealt with and out of the way, but
it is not. So, if you want it dealt with. Please request agenda time for
Berlin and ensure to update any drafts or other material to actually
take into account what actually has happened in the last 15 months.


Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: