IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Thu, 06 March 2014 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.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 21D9B1A017E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:54:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 QhzjB_ATRWbY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server209.appriver.com (server209g.appriver.com [8.31.233.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A081A01AE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:54:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Note-AR-ScanTimeLocal: 3/6/2014 8:54:23 AM
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Primary: jonathan@vidyo.com
X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide
X-Virus-Scan: V-
X-Note-SnifferID: 0
X-Note: TCH-CT/SI:0-70/SG:2 3/6/2014 8:53:34 AM
X-GBUdb-Analysis: 0, 162.209.16.213, Ugly c=0.909613 p=-0.983566 Source White
X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-3573-c
X-Note-419: 0 ms. Fail:0 Chk:1345 of 1345 total
X-Note: SCH-CT/SI:0-1345/SG:1 3/6/2014 8:54:20 AM
X-Note: Spam Tests Failed:
X-Country-Path: ->UNITED STATES->LOCAL
X-Note-Sending-IP: 162.209.16.213
X-Note-Reverse-DNS: mail2.vidyo.com
X-Note-Return-Path: jonathan@vidyo.com
X-Note: User Rule Hits:
X-Note: Global Rule Hits: G327 G328 G329 G330 G334 G335 G445
X-Note: Encrypt Rule Hits:
X-Note: Mail Class: VALID
X-Note: Headers Injected
Received: from [162.209.16.213] (HELO mail.vidyo.com) by server209.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.8) with ESMTPS id 77803751; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 08:54:23 -0500
Received: from 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62]) by 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:54:22 -0600
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level
Thread-Index: AQHPOIXa97MYXf3mNUS0a1X98yqSFprTB4SAgAFqNACAAAj3gA==
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:54:22 +0000
Message-ID: <BDAD8705-1B47-4822-ABE3-CB861A561B12@vidyo.com>
References: <1BC59A5D-D1C9-4E3F-ABFB-C1D664CD7ACF@cisco.com> <EEF5B1D0-7782-4EB8-90DF-F1D56B2D2ADC@phonefromhere.com> <0526965B-6AC9-42F4-9E62-CF3BF29872D3@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-3JAKZDHtrx9J2v=hqksQ9xdz7XW_1HbqioEzWMqUrn7A@mail.gmail.com> <E7C174FB-B137-4E6D-81AC-06C8C2B30FE1@vidyo.com> <CAOJ7v-3p5jQBXe0aFhxc74XR1NZmtkFV5JPp+Vmba+0-aWvS6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3p5jQBXe0aFhxc74XR1NZmtkFV5JPp+Vmba+0-aWvS6g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [31.133.187.226]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <37ADE3FB8810534AA5BAAA80E9A9D057@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/8G1erBvOgnYQBZbfzMqzFcSTS_Y
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level
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, 06 Mar 2014 13:54:30 -0000

On Mar 6, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> That is a good point, and implies that for any header extension that recommends encryption (e.g. RFC 6464 for audio level), we have the following choices:
> a) Implementations MUST offer only the encrypted version, and MUST accept only the encrypted version
> b) Implementations MUST offer both the encrypted and unencrypted versions, and MUST accept both
> 
> Of these, a) is the less complicated option.

To be precise, 6904 says an answerer MUST NOT accept both encrypted and unencrypted versions of the same header (in the same answer).  I think option b) should say that Implementations MUST be prepared to accept either encrypted and unencrypted.  [I.e., I agree with Martin, whose e-mail came in while I was writing this.]

If we go this way, there’s then a W3C question of whether to provide an API knob to choose between the encrypted and unencrypted version of the header extension.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email