Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 11 July 2013 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A42A21F9A37 for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jz3hpjWZllzB for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D1521F88DB for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j13so7468670wgh.12 for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cqxQXJPb1D4824CTqGUgRMk7OyNgZYnZQYp47BOupNI=; b=Ws8MbGTH3//0Nh/Re5C6g8a1FuJAT+hqEPufsMJPzVYa1i4G969/Ok9ZC7RRSq53OE F8FYjYyHEsq8N69RgDo+dmF699gEVKsTxYYiiLnlOfw052mih4ttnNcjdmhg0b/LGyZ/ IhdvnhQPF4Wr+7i7OCvAYqRiy15XJJZJbrqPKdEpsU9Ddq//yJsMEFAljlIKrBx6BgXr MUd2FNfN09WBqGOrU4Io9K6c8a0+0AOpLRUyD+MK5v+uIYTsv9kQzeL2+VNFiq02jfgL rhoEk0V/yuSzXkb0s9wN6u9DjavTFzqKFC4LAjPH2cTHa8meD9FxUQXeNa869sLk96mA jhNg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id r3mr22032589wjw.5.1373569403553; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:03:23 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:03:25 -0000

On 11 July 2013 11:24, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
>> On 11 July 2013 09:51, Ted Hardie <> wrote:
>>> Should SDES be part of  WebRTC security practice and, if so, how?
>>> Presentations: 30 minutes
>>> Discussion:  40 minutes
>> Are the chairs confident that this topic can be resolved in this time?
>> We managed to fritter a similar amount of time away without
>> conclusion in the past.  I can see how you plan to accommodate
>> overruns, but that just opens the possibility more time-wasting.  How
>> do we ensure that this discussion actually concludes?
> Thought on how to make that happen? Time needed ?

There are two aspects of this that I, personally, want to see resolved
before I'm happy that we can conclude on this:
 - a story for the gateway-to-other-stuff scenarios (where other-stuff
is mostly just all-the-existing-stuff)
 - a story for conference scenarios

The first two could conclude that we need to re-encrypt at these
points, but that would require some justification.  Or we could
conclude that we need SDES, or maybe that DTLS-SRTP+EKT is the right

I'm stretching my recall capacity, but I recall promises from several
people to present on various aspects.  If those presentations cover
the ground well enough, then we can go into a discussion
well-prepared.  Time needed will then depend on the time that each
presenter needs.

If we can get to the point where the space is well-enough understood,
we should be able to conclude.  That does require a modest amount of
time for each participant to make an impassioned plea at the mic.  And
pontification takes time.

We may need to consider the alternative decision making process here.

>>> Post-Plan A/Plan B MMUSIC discussion of impact to RTCWEB documents
>>> Presentation: 30 minutes
>> How are you planning to prepare for this?  Do you have presenter
>> candidates lined up?
> This is a very draft agenda - part of the issues is we are not even at the -00 draft deadline yet so I expect that by next week we should be able to figure out more details. We have scheduled the MMUSIC meetings before the RTCWeb meetings in Berlin so at some level, some of this may change after the MMUSIC meetings happen. Anyways, expect more details after we get to read all the drafts and expect us to be a bit dynamic on this given what happens in the MMUSIC meeting.

You'd best have some candidates lined up to produce some discussion
material in short order.

>>> Chair Discussion:  10 minutes
>> I'm curious how you intend to spend this time.
> We would like to inform folks of a few things happening in other WG (TURN, NAT, BEHAVE etc) but we would also like to have a discussion about what it takes to get to "Done" for the first iteration of all this stuff. We need to get WG feedback on what work is left and what needs to be prioritized.

Thanks.  That helps.  That might be too short a time for that list.