Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC calls, not +1 (Re: Requiring ICE for RTC calls)

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Wed, 28 September 2011 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
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 7319E1F0CDA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 ra7drZFPNzQK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [212.3.14.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6571F0C62 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.40.24] (ns.webway.se [87.96.134.125]) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 06BB4754BCE4; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:09:46 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_12106025-1ADB-41E3-B4AE-5A60593455E7"
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfnC9qB+gjMAqg_511oPcEbm4B=uSO_ZQOrZ+F+DVtwZ2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:10:12 +0200
Message-Id: <6FA62263-46BE-4019-A65F-DECE62AD98B3@edvina.net>
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E809EE6.2050702@skype.net> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1087@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <BLU152-W62B7F2AC3F0D5B6E277CB993F00@phx.gbl> <CAD5OKxt=P3jg9N0weFUZLvUYQxyeXa+9YMtpc8wn7osuPQmTpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtVCgiFV_iAYd1w0uZZcS5+gsixOHJ0jGN=0CMdq++kdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-3PrnNyesL+x-mto9Q9djjiJ13QZHXCiGfY1mv3nubrqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxsKTHCuBQdUnGQtGfF7NmZZExLe9Q9B9cNR=483neuHPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1rzdmviAnGknVZmrU_TDNoC3NmWd1g6iyx0WzZ4xB3Pw@mail.gmail.com> <4E820825.9090101@skype.net> <CAD5OKxvmKi3Py0gNcTdREdfS07hA-=f6L+u8KKVgSWztMft9kQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmL4VSRE+kgs5kXzQc3mCHnKpU-EAbVPKO4QNEYLKje=A@mail.gmail.com> <4E821E47.4080205@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfndBhod6Hoq6h63795x8f=ew28rDys=Fx8ScwVpVJwp1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOoF6MNSpATG2+_e99iRq7Jf9OoWWNCa=qRGW_v+maoHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxubnxLAqybCgnBXpKR9S0rBEsoDg9enCaverjVWYad7Ew@mail.gmail.com> <4E8265D3.5020 809@skype.net> <CALiegfnC9qB+gjMAqg_511oPcEbm4B=uSO_ZQOrZ+F+DVtwZ2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC calls, not +1 (Re: Requiring ICE for RTC calls)
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: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:07:04 -0000

28 sep 2011 kl. 10:36 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:

> But I don't think the same for SRTP. I don't consider that content
> carried via plain RTP is more important than content carried via HTTP,
> and AFAIK HTTPS is not a requirement in RFC 2616, neither in any web
> browser.

If you look into your web browser, you will see that more and more sites are moving to only HTTPS. There's a reason for that. Facebook, Twitter and many others. Large sites that are not "banks", but social media or just information sites  like www.iis.se.

When HTTP was written there wasn't CPU enough to handle mandatory SSL. Now we have CPU power to handle it and encryption accelerators are much cheaper. The world is different and comparing  the situation we have now with what was reality when RFC 2616 was written is a bad comparision that I would not consider valid.

(Iñaki: I see that we have fun some discussions ahead of us at Voip2day.net in Madrid next week :-) )
/O