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

[Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>]

On 4/25/2013 10:55 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     O
>
>         Yes, some gateway scenarios might be cheaper/easier with SDES,
>         but I see the primary use-cases for WebRTC to be
>         browser-to-browser, not browser-legacy.
>
>
>     Just because the charter was mistakenly written that way doesn't
>     mean it is true.
>
>
> I remind you that the actual title of the group is:
>
> "Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (rtcweb)".  While you may 
> disagree with the charter, please remember that it's not fundamentally 
> a prediction about what the eventual balance of flows will be.  It's a 
> statement about where the balance of effort in the group should go.   
> To me as an individual, it implies that we should not make trade-offs 
> that optimize a non-browser use case at the expense of the browser use 
> case except in pretty extraordinary circumstances.
>

Adding SDES helps a non-browser use case with no expense to the browser 
use cases except for the small amount of additional code.

If you don't believe that (because you think it reduces the 
browser-to-browser security) then I will point you to  browser use cases 
include multi-party scenarios that will require EKT, and then show how 
the security of EKT is nearly equivalent.

Matthew Kaufman