Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Fri, 11 November 2011 14:58 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 E0C4521F863E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, 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 2ohr5rf4yDpJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3732B21F8548 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywt34 with SMTP id 34so2411542ywt.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.55.24 with SMTP id d24mr1366792ana.158.1321023527635; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f32sm34342592ani.20.2011.11.11.06.58.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yenq4 with SMTP id q4so1009619yen.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.17.3 with SMTP id k3mr24718060pbd.69.1321023523523; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.62.170 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:58:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A2DFC694-DBDF-4DB4-8DE0-DD638C7AF2BE@acmepacket.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B7FD@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A105@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804691DA2@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <CALiegfmf59jb4asUu9LA6YY_aMtKEnM1Wy34KbuLEn3_h1xBXA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmM1PB=VAQjfh4rW3-3C8aumHdWy9nZxD0-BWBq9Kq_tg@mail.gmail.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3BA57@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <CALiegfkWnRT8m4S9pXTxuLsc-p_bhkG3d=PX3qgiFFt5gW5yfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvQYVKOZF88WLCiRseg-qXQdOpKeDU_t9b-yA2GcDBT-w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOiPxz_swdaG6Aqoch1WAUtjNh4eOQy1QObCDXT_B8azg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtp+LQBRCHgbWdJyrSRcpNQ82i64TJgGtGPrE7+GKcEog@mail.gmail.com> <4EBC3475.90706@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxu_-+ZRsqpUBkFSj=tYtOKG0pK3JoQTZHwQGMuBCnp0Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuaWJ3SBv+0gac6EQy6-Lsb-LS_SBXk5FqObKy4mN6wNg@mail.gmail.com> <CCF4FC92-D5AA-43C8-A0B2-8041C9B8E1BD@edvina.net> <CAD5OKxs-pWwDBjwAu=mQVWRZa4H_YPpzQ31=0qxUUj-pJOErcg@mail.gmail.com> <A2DFC694-DBDF-4DB4-8DE0-DD638C7AF2BE@acmepacket.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:58:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtQ2ehMs+pw7Bidqmyn2OePHOU3t3=HtX_F0ZsnYfKiHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51f99dddc0cb804b176c14b
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: 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: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:58:49 -0000

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>wrote;wrote:

>
> I think using in-band tones in RTP for DTMF instead of 4733 would be a
> really bad idea.
>
>
This is not what I've said. What I said was that the rest of the industry
is using AVT tones (RFC 2833/4733) compliant DTMF tones without SRTP and
normally does not force SRTP if you plan to use RFC 2833 tones. Even though
there is a SHOULD requirement for SRTP in conjunction with RFC 4733, the
industry ignores it as being excessive and uses RFC 4733 tones in plain
RTP, which is what I am suggesting. Not using SRTP does not mean that we
need to switch to in band tones.
_____________
Roman Shpount