IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SRTP and "marketing"

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Wed, 28 March 2012 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.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 E35D821E80E9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 BujmW+z4OZGD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AE021E8097 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.21) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:58:43 -0400
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.197]) by Mail1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.130]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:58:42 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SRTP and "marketing"
Thread-Index: AQHNDS3wTtwICWEdGUmv8/XIx55mBA==
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:58:42 +0000
Message-ID: <00052A1F-CE65-4A53-9B7D-261E1CC75426@acmepacket.com>
References: <4F72D6B3.40803@bbn.com> <4F72E453.7070204@alvestrand.no> <4F72EB53.5000409@bbn.com> <0bf301cd0d04$22d53200$687f9600$@com>
In-Reply-To: <0bf301cd0d04$22d53200$687f9600$@com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.41.24.34]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3F26AAEEA036844C8E51A1B2037F052C@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP and "marketing"
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 Mar 2012 21:58:49 -0000

On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Dan Wing wrote:

> We do need a foundation upon which an authentication/identity 
> infrastructure can be built.  We know we need one.
> That foundation is DTLS-SRTP, and not Security Descriptions.

Now you're starting to sound like a marketing guy.  ;)
What's next: "we'll build more synergy and have a unified platform with DTLS-SRTP"?

But more seriously, I don't understand this "foundation" argument.  We're going to have DTLS-SRTP.  No one's suggesting we don't have DTLS-SRTP.  All Browsers MUST implement DTLS-SRTP.  We'll have it for Browser-to-Browser, and for Browser-to-Gateway if the Gateway supports it.  We'll have the foundation.

Requiring it for Gateways would make sense if it offered some real advantage, or didn't have any disadvantages.  There don't appear to be real advantages, while we know of disadvantages.  And gateways have no real means of offering an end-to-end identity.  Why would you want to build a foundation on air?

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email