IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.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 3D93121F968D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 BwnRKbU0EUAm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp004.apm-internet.net (smtp004.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AE521F95EC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 86073 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2013 17:23:36 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp004.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 26 Apr 2013 17:23:36 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E677C18A0410; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:23:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [192.67.4.33] (unknown [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C74A118A03A8; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:23:35 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1B5A8F0E-E3F7-48A6-BD21-56010C9BEC4F"
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMRcRGQ3OxAFpctz_ULHKkm+ehKb1Q=iiU4oVyXV4jgmrB5ceA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:23:34 +0100
Message-Id: <DBBC2EEA-7D6D-4A8C-A0D3-930155641F60@phonefromhere.com>
References: <3FA2E46D-C98E-4FC0-9F1D-AD595A861CE1@iii.ca> <CABkgnnVky++ZF1uaM8p4xtzvDQH7HMCaL8N2ZV3dZDYnv-NvzQ@mail.gmail.com> <AF40C6D6-01B4-4BF6-9AF8-2552B660C2A3@phonefromhere.com> <CAMRcRGQ3OxAFpctz_ULHKkm+ehKb1Q=iiU4oVyXV4jgmrB5ceA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
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, 26 Apr 2013 17:23:41 -0000

On 26 Apr 2013, at 17:36, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:

> Tim, 
> 
>    I disagree with the argument on the interop that  a media gateway is always required. Cisco for example have been shipping devices that work fine with webrtc browsers that do H.264 without needing a media gateway. I am sure this is true for examples other than Cisco.

That's not a legacy device then.
So they can just add DTLS support in the next release and they are still good.

T.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email