Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Wed, 07 September 2011 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.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 AB36221F8AD9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.845, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666, SARE_LWFORWARD=1.11]
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 WCSZkkUGPkWi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF58621F8AD3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyd12 with SMTP id 12so31961gyd.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gybC6em03gPkgroVSH9bUlRpqP+6onl+h2Ji8Jo1Rnk=; b=mUkdGEwRcKofrKveuhK3eSIkyXLC++ZTji0TcnNn1yz/ePGuGqSEo3hYJmJyYYhC0x FNA8msy1XMN6WhWUn8JRqqqrZ0E4bbWaQ882eRZlICXdodcMHZaSab+0ZCN1WGtmUma1 oSPXnWBo+rbFynjiIBcD0dqem/RwXyY0zspeQ=
Received: by 10.236.78.200 with SMTP id g48mr36066240yhe.12.1315426681603; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-70-133-70-225.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v45sm1084493yhe.12.2011.09.07.13.18.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E67D1EA.2060909@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:19:54 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <89177AB2-F721-47E4-8471-2180EDA10615@voxeo.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB34D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <496EE152-41F2-49AB-A136-05735FE5A9F9@voxeo.com><101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E540FE2.7020605@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106423F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net> <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F086B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E666926.8050705@skype.net> <43A0D702-1D1F-4B4E-B8E6-C9F1A06E3F8A@edvina.net> <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7020E64DC@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <E4EC1B17-0CC4-4F79-96DD-84E589FCC4F0@edvina.net> <4E67C3F7.7020304@jesup.org> <8233FBBB-26CE-4822-81A4-65F86A4E8666@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <8233FBBB-26CE-4822-81A4-65F86A4E8666@edvina.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Encryption mandate
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, 07 Sep 2011 20:16:15 -0000

On 09/07/2011 12:59 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>
>> Signalling is secure, so it could even use a direct optional downgrade from SAVP* to AVP* (i.e. similar to the best-effort-strp draft)
>>      
> How can you assert that signalling is secure? When, how?
>    
>


Real-time is the assertion and is not secure unless we volunteer for 
double entry-systems. "Forward-looking statements..."... "do" you want 
signal quality enforcement? "...and questions."

Do you compare them to market value quotes and the number of votes for 
their rate of appearance? I think subscribers of this WG want security 
for mere difference on the floor; eggshell areas defy rate of gravity, 
or imagine the cone of silence gone wild.

By scalar value.

-- 
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant