IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SRTP not mandatory-to-use

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 11 January 2012 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 3053221F8674 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:05:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XopNwHCI3WOi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE3321F8642 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vcbfk13 with SMTP id fk13so1037102vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.94.208 with SMTP id de16mr648398vdb.6.1326319526086; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:05:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.185.227 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:04:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.173]
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W473D79D258BA2EAC1FF5D5939E0@phx.gbl>
References: <CAErhfrwu322=HTS0JZhum9EGfb73KmYS6CU_KMESyzEWhtvg2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKhHsXHnT2p7yncha5-BQ=-Lzk3-N+tuijM-UqwfP1mPUi173A@mail.gmail.com> <BLU152-W1140980759D89AC3C1D0CA93940@phx.gbl> <CA+9kkMBdX7YT1tPj5M3VrzAPKa6tXNGZVvvhjW9V4oOEC7g_kA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1_qMoHBb3K7rV=hG9EadqL=xn4KEdG0zdWnKZU9_TipQ@mail.gmail.com> <4AEFFC17-EF17-40F2-B83B-0B0CC44AD2C3@cisco.com> <CAKhHsXEes+Lf+uKdTrjXoy+3PMy2uNumNL-W-0s4_xRXW6FiZg@mail.gmail.com> <4F0CAC8C.8010203@wonderhamster.org> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C6538049202074ABD3A@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCF907@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfkejnU2rTe-FibUVxTrRS9SivkhGXB5eK+FhD8Vu6iTMA@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCF9FC@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfn07bS58B+4ZyzRTnO4LCpw1e96dnqpSM+TT1y3QG2Zwg@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01DCFBC1@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <CAOJ7v-20+yL7r+_ODx_czHTiujXZZWESaZRB7MQjhvScg3RFtw@mail.gmail.com> <4F0DFD0B.2000009@jesup.org> <CABcZeBMnkO-hd3DtKNtxq5knUb=bd7ZEMNKVUX8WBLqLKkU14Q@mail.gmail.com> <BLU152-W473D79D258BA2EAC1FF5D5939E0@phx.gbl>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:04:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPFQzFrrFBFfG9UE_XF9CQeh=S43kKJX=d31ODd54MKWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SRTP not mandatory-to-use
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, 11 Jan 2012 22:05:27 -0000

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Bernard Aboba
<bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> EKR said:
>
>> FWIW, my take on the broader question is that the key issue is how we wish
>> to interop with legacy SIP/PSTN-type stuff. If we want it to be possible
>> to
>> interop without media gatewaying, then the large amount of non-SRTP gear
>> means that as a practical matter one must support RTP. SDES is almost
>> an afterthought in this scenario, in that it would allow you to interop
>> with
>> SRTP with some unknown but probably relatively small fraction of the
>> installed base.
>
> [BA] Quite a few PSTN gateways support SRTP/SDES, including very inexpensive
> ones (e.g. $<100).
> As was mentioned, there has been considerable movement on SRTP/SDES
> implementation recently as the SIPIt reports show.
> So I don't think that a desire to support legacy interop necessarily implies
> a requirement for RTP support.
>
> I would say that DTLS/SRTP support is an issue though.  Prospects for
> support of SIP DTLS/SRTP within PSTN gateways
> are not good, let alone an RTCWEB variant.

OK. I'm not sufficiently informed on the level of support for SDES in
the gateway
environment. If it's that popular, then great; we can replace "RTP" in my
statement above with SRTP/SDES.

Best,
-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email