IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Sun, 13 November 2011 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 6FC0221F8B50 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:28:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.638
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 VvITJE9-Wvv0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:28:41 -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 DD9F221F8B44 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vcbfk1 with SMTP id fk1so5219616vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.150.204 with SMTP id z12mr2054194vcv.43.1321187320078; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:28:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:28:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C11CACFE-FE5A-43F2-8B61-6ABC9965B7FC@acmepacket.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B7FD@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A105@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804691DA2@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <CALiegfmf59jb4asUu9LA6YY_aMtKEnM1Wy34KbuLEn3_h1xBXA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmM1PB=VAQjfh4rW3-3C8aumHdWy9nZxD0-BWBq9Kq_tg@mail.gmail.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3BA57@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <CALiegfkWnRT8m4S9pXTxuLsc-p_bhkG3d=PX3qgiFFt5gW5yfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvQYVKOZF88WLCiRseg-qXQdOpKeDU_t9b-yA2GcDBT-w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOiPxz_swdaG6Aqoch1WAUtjNh4eOQy1QObCDXT_B8azg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtp+LQBRCHgbWdJyrSRcpNQ82i64TJgGtGPrE7+GKcEog@mail.gmail.com> <4EBC3475.90706@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxu_-+ZRsqpUBkFSj=tYtOKG0pK3JoQTZHwQGMuBCnp0Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuaWJ3SBv+0gac6EQy6-Lsb-LS_SBXk5FqObKy4mN6wNg@mail.gmail.com> <CCF4FC92-D5AA-43C8-A0B2-8041C9B8E1BD@edvina.net> <CAD5OKxs-pWwDBjwAu=mQVWRZa4H_YPpzQ31=0qxUUj-pJOErcg@mail.gmail.com> <A2DFC694-DBDF-4DB4-8DE0-DD638C7AF2BE@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfkU1qhLmhY9L373pF7j9zwHipFfu4mAuY49RDTNL7V5Vg@mail.gmail.com> <C11CACFE-FE5A-43F2-8B61-6ABC9965B7FC@acmepacket.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:28:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfkehnLmWuqBPMRki=tJDTHmJ0e6M3RGX-mDBJNzcAA_DQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)
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, 13 Nov 2011 12:28:41 -0000

2011/11/13 Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>:
> So long as the mechanisms needed to do so don't hurt WebRTC or force a specific architectural model, why do you care?

Some telcos in this WG (and I could find exact mails) would accept
even if WebRTC uses a pure SIP stack. Some others propose G729
inclusion in WebRTC (wow!), and all of them ask for non mandatory
SRTP. Soon, they will also ask non mandatory ICE (they will argue "ICE
mandatory to implement in WebRTC client, but not mandatory to use").
DTMF's via RTP is just the less important subject. What I care is all
the rest, and the fact that 75% of mails in this WG are about PSTN
legacy interoperability.

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email