Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Cb B <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Cb B <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> But that's not the point.  The question is can we include native SCTP
> >> as an option in  draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports?  What is the downside?
> >>
> >> CB
> >
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > Given previous decisions of the working group, you would need to describe
> > how to provide confidentiality.  At the moment, I know only of TLS over
> SCTP
> > (which would reverse the current mapping) and SCTP over IPSec (which
> would
> > likely actually be IPSec/UDP); do you know of other methods which would
> keep
> > SCTP at the top layer of the protocol stack and still provide
> > confidentiality?
> >
> > regarsd,
> >
> > Ted
> >
>
> I believe the cleanest would be to do TLS over SCTP.  I understand
> that changes the top of the transport stack, and create variation.
> But, i don't think current SCTP over DTLS plan has won any beauty
> prizes.  If this is standards track work that must stand the test of
> time, TLS over SCTP seems appropriate.
>
>
This requires a completely new method for providing channel abstractions.

If you would like the working group to consider a change of that magnitude,
a worked draft describing a solution that meets all of the use cases set
out in
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-07 seems to me the bare minimum to consider
overturning the established working group consensus on this point.

Speaking personally, I do not see sufficient SCTP/IP deployment to warrant
further discussion on this point.  The working group has invested
considerable
time and effort on this approach and the likely result of this change seems
to
me either a less deployable system or one which will deploy later because
of the
need to start discussions over.

regards,

Ted Hardie




> CB
>