Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Sun, 14 July 2013 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 DBFB121F9CD7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.718, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vuJG7LWoL2KV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3105521F9CD1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f586d000001a55-c7-51e24c1a4b3f
Received: from ESESSHC019.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AC.04.06741.A1C42E15; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 08:58:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.6]) by ESESSHC019.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 08:58:34 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES
Thread-Index: AQHOf/PYrRNaPAl1IEWTwZbyw5tH2g==
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 06:58:33 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C3139D3@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CA+9kkMBuCTdFsUMtmuBz6BnrSJMpHywEZU+x+m8ARnGprvzDzA@mail.gmail.com>, <CABkgnnXOa44ZkZj-g6r7Qdk8dwm6m81yT4U=Q23-hE1Q7Hn22w@mail.gmail.com>, <F9556428-B6B8-407D-9D62-9A1CC04D4253@oracle.com>, <B2DF729D-B313-4D3E-9C06-DA00AF7A14FF@oracle.com> <BLU169-W1221AE43EFBADA8B862E43993650@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.148]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra6Uz6NAg0/t+hb7l1xmtvi06ROz xdp/7ewOzB6Pe86weSxZ8pPJ4+PTWywBzFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGefOP2UsWMVZ8eDKb9YG xiPsXYycHBICJhKb10xkg7DFJC7cWw9kc3EICRxmlFi4+SkzhLOIUeJ+Ww8jSBWbQKDE1n0L gKo4OEQEdCX+dhmBhJkFQiU2th9kBQkLC2hLfDxZBRIWEdCRaL+wkBHC1pP4eHMVWCeLgKrE m2OZIGFeAV+Jw9v+QG3azCRxdMszsNsYge75fmoNE8R4cYlbT+YzQdwpILFkz3lmCFtU4uXj f6wQtpJE45InrBD1ehI3pk5hg7C1JZYtfM0MsUxQ4uTMJywTGEVnIRk7C0nLLCQts5C0LGBk WcXInpuYmZNebriJERgdB7f81t3BeOqcyCFGaQ4WJXHeTXpnAoUE0hNLUrNTUwtSi+KLSnNS iw8xMnFwSjUwlu335JOxXFNjsFvMdKnE5wuhHHMOyaw2rE60Vn/n/zV3hvSdfVxGR5l5jG9/ fqaa5/DGZu2pul08b7XEPGPure3+vix6hcXBiaZLGtd4PP95aRbz0w6Z4kSBNTOupcV+eT4t +ZOw0lfXRi2za3zPD7440M1QGGu25M/t9XOYs7z0F6m7XIozVWIpzkg01GIuKk4EAMoI341c AgAA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES
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: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 06:58:43 -0000

On 7/13/13 11:02 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Hadriel --
>
> I think you've brought up a critical point, which is very worth keeping
> in mind throughout the discussions in IETF RTCWEB.  That is that WebRTC
> is really two distinct innovations -- one, a profile of "RAI 2.0"
> functionality, defining a core set of RTP functionality developed over
> the last decade (e.g. end-to-end security, adaptive HD codecs, AVPF,
> etc.), and the other, a set of Javascript APIs for Web browsers defined
> by the W3C.IMHO,  the "RAI 2.0" aspect is likely to prove more
 > important (and long-lived) than the W3C WEBRTC API aspect.


I think that the Javascript APIs are going to be very important, but I 
fully agree that the "RAI 2.0" profile defined will be used beyond 
browsers. And I think that the more self contained (i.e. not dependent 
on other signaling during operation) we can make that RAI 2.0 profile 
the better.

So I am again arguing for pushing things like pause/resume signaling to 
RTP/RCTP, and not depend on out of band exchanges of signaling messages.