Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

Ravindran Parthasarathi <> Wed, 09 November 2011 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BFA11E8073 for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:58:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.63
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kHyLkoiAWxve for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229A51F0C47 for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA92wdQ2019199; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:58:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:58:02 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:28:11 +0530
Received: from ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by ([fe80::5cbc:2823:f6cc:9ce7%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:28:11 +0530
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: Cullen Jennings <>, "Olle E. Johansson" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 02:58:10 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2011 02:58:11.0483 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AB596B0:01CC9E8B]
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:58:08 -0000


As I mentioned in, below comment #2 is not valid in IETF. 

But I'm interested in your opinion as Enterprise UC expert on my 1st comment:

"1) Security could be in the lower layer itself (IPsec, VPN, private MPLS cloud). For Enterprise-only-WebRTC application (no federation & no interop), there is no need of security for specific application like WebRTC as it is ensured in the infrastructure. WebRTC security will be duplicated for these infrastructure and may lead to double encryption unnecessarily."


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cullen Jennings []
>Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:29 PM
>To: Olle E. Johansson
>Cc: Ravindran Parthasarathi; <>
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
>On Nov 8, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>> 2) Being in India, I'm interested in avoiding Government restriction
>on WebRTC proposal (Thanks to Tim for pointing this). I may not surprise
>to see that WebRTC mechanism is banned in India because intelligent
>agency struggles to break the key in each terrorist WebRTC site.
>> That is an interesting objection. I don't think SRTP by default is the
>problem here. In the case where you need lawful interception in the
>> the server needs to route the calls through an RTCweb b2b media
>I think the situation in India is a taxiation not encryption issue.
>Partha and I can do VoIP between Canada and India fully encrypted no
>problem - in fact we have a dial plan set up specifically so I can do
>that with him. The issue is a taxation issue. If we want to be able to
>connect that voip server to the PSTN in a way that it becomes what the
>regulators in India consider a telephone service, then we need
>permission to effectively be an indian telco. Right now I can make a
>full SRTP encrypted conversation with between my IP phones and Partha's
>but I don't think Partha can use his IP phone to access one the the PSTN
>GWs outside India.
>Anyways, I will remind people of RAVEN http://www.rfc-