Re: [rtcweb] Transport -03, bundling question (Re: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-02)

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Thu, 03 April 2014 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736481A0193 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 13:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBg4RjlE03GJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 13:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9571A0185 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 13:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p61so2482710wes.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=8CnmxvQUyaleAp/U1mutJDzL97pOvoxUqoHZyse933Q=; b=OT8BKXczavC7t51mN/kSYvHZ1cDPGcm5Nw/jR1G/1x8Eh/4CbonmqW2o0gHceaYSIA UtEluyTBQ+/vaWMG/Pg9n+TbZjDAtNPSO6pfmAqGLeRbD/B2G2bhT+R8sNDTJxwRALic UEUfohghSYw7LyOpjMRh2kYGALWoyOkSflsV8BLy+fb+ho4bVWhne7tCVhoE6l8w52me C7SFgGOmpXy99UKCf5H5dOrT5UNPlrC28L1VDMBNOJ9NnH2X9TQ8MRbmfpOVyE2cdz6a X6K3LRwin0+tyh9qdWXQCNoKrbAQvFeFxOfAF0lYR4avJoY5JkhWh3Yxb6L6y9VRz/1k 2nfg==
X-Received: by 10.194.92.228 with SMTP id cp4mr13692231wjb.81.1396557919723; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.102.130 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWzh8Us=e-MhEZg=8Psy7=-BqLAt-UWASBPjuTAku9bgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5304829E.20809@ericsson.com> <5304FC27.807@alvestrand.no> <530C74A1.3000203@ericsson.com> <5338829B.3020505@alvestrand.no> <5339385D.6070006@ericsson.com> <53397036.5050104@alvestrand.no> <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF82B7921@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> <533984DD.2020804@alvestrand.no> <CAOW+2dsX4DkUTSdyVKXbHtgbVbrmS3+KTDiaYF7=8FORQ3Ri_w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWzh8Us=e-MhEZg=8Psy7=-BqLAt-UWASBPjuTAku9bgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 13:44:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dt+YdsJLJ8dFmRsaKpOpQQXd1ohX0u_r8sJjvifk_kB3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfd0bdeb6aad504f6297a56
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/UAa3EHqGLSFTxT-vjf-zBT7R3UM
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transport -03, bundling question (Re: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-02)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 20:45:30 -0000

Martin said:

"The marginal benefit remains...tiny relative to the cost"

[BA] This is particularly true if you consider *all* of the additional work
items required to enable the usage scenario.  It is one thing to support
SRTP/SRTCP over RFC 4571 framing, but without also  encapsulating DTLS/SRTP
over RFC 4571 framing, how do you reliably obtain the SRTP/SRTCP master
keys?  Similarly, do we also run SCTP/DTLS data channel over RFC 4571
framing?   In my experience, without a great deal of care, running one
reliable transport over another can works poorly if packet loss is
encountered (e.g. the time-out periods interfere with one another).


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 3 April 2014 12:13, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "My memory was faulty; I had thought that the same conclusion had applied
> > for TCP ICE candidates as for TURN ICE candidates. Version -04 will have
> > this fixed."
> >
> > [BA]  My memory was similarly faulty. But assuming the problem is with my
> > memory as opposed to the minutes, the decision to require support for ICE
> > TCP brings to mind other questions such as:
>
> That makes three with faulty memories.  But perhaps that's my
> prejudice at play.  The marginal benefit remains...tiny relative to
> the cost.
>