Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 08 November 2011 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
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 8602021F8AAA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:01:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 RdQ1mpgxQCuA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E598D21F8A58 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qadc10 with SMTP id c10so572865qad.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.26.73 with SMTP id d9mr2106934qcc.290.1320768086141; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id du5sm1867711qab.14.2011.11.08.08.01.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so704089qyk.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:01:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.72.103 with SMTP id c7mr1888554pbv.1.1320768084939; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:01:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.62.170 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:01:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <845C03B2-1975-4145-8F52-8CEC9E360AF3@edvina.net>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <8A61D801-D14D-408B-9875-63C37D0CC166@acmepacket.com> <CABw3bnPE=OY_h5bM7GA6wgrXiOBL8P4J0kw1jLv-GSpHAbg=Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNqdkh8u=gwOvKfDCQA7rXdAyQkfaM1r2Sx10787btP6A@mail.gmail.com> <B10FEFF6-0ADC-4DB1-83BB-50A11C65EC35@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBNSXtim_VqzqAd8Z-u4zWSjaYmsVZPN=7sDYkJsgtRAHA@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7E6A5.70209@alvestrand.no> <F8003BA9-BCD8-4F02-B514-8B883FF90F91@acmepacket.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349D81@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <845C03B2-1975-4145-8F52-8CEC9E360AF3@edvina.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:01:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtGZiWVHNmmC2JZsFMRsYabDzmcsGv8kqsPS5g2cabvBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041b47f688950004b13b4863
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
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: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:01:27 -0000

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Olle E. Johansson <oej@edvina.net> wrote:

>
> That is an interesting objection. I don't think SRTP by default is the
> problem here. In the case where you need lawful interception in the
> application,
> the server needs to route the calls through an RTCweb b2b media server.
>
>
SRTP is exactly what is the problem here. Do not confuse this with lawful
intercept in the application. This is about encrypted communications being
illegal in some places. If your web site is using encryption or cannot be
accessed without encryption it would be blocked. As an example we are all
familiar with, think about the key length restrictions TLS used to have due
to US export regulations. This has been lifted, but there are numerous
regulations in other countries that prohibit encryption at all, across the
borders, or from certain institutions (like prisons).

I am not arguing that we should not include SRTP. In fact I think we must,
but it should be possible to turn it off.
______________
Roman Shpount