IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Identity and PSTN gateways

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 03 April 2012 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 E2FF211E8118 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 b9Q52AVOi4gf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652B911E8116 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so35776pbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=9+tIGwFd+hvtuDvlgefEwFi+WnC+MLBJamewEsZEsrU=; b=igSsbN6shVttY5gtUhYa9uj77F64awPg9/Mk3atUB0uZ5HXjT2Cz8zPK+R3QoqGX1u YIjAzWD9khj61Gu2KtNNSff2im1TLmPPSl3Z7rVemiafPlLhVSnLPzgCtonTJxFpTi+6 yl/evurAUnpDdO4GrzGziFbmKqbqTE0KA6JJTJL6LCBStAJ+axFnz2jyqshu4IvG7/h1 c684sqC861Alal9yGypswJr5Kkc/kmrfrSn87SIS/zpclhhNa8FSjA42pyEUTV4rQ1l6 2vYuDmP6uf33nrWQ34hNxL6skVrNGT/aCOQ9686xKQC5FhamNvptfYf6JSlMbpewj3Ep K1Pg==
Received: by 10.68.195.38 with SMTP id ib6mr29990526pbc.28.1333468696166; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (mail-pz0-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vz18sm13565921pbb.44.2012.04.03.08.58.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dady13 with SMTP id y13so5034691dad.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.237.1 with SMTP id uy1mr29827209pbc.99.1333468694507; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.6.67 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfk=QotRvBo9kYVmX_qnG+hxic-SOKGogKGbF-Q8Z33_Fw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F7AF40D.3010706@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfky6h7fMZkfN+xQgQYvutYh2H7h_nvfA8mQe5wPKGWqvA@mail.gmail.com> <4F7B0033.7060101@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfm+43pwb0k2zWyBc4v1gvzDXc628yyKtLxA1y1S94-sMA@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E223D5D@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfk=QotRvBo9kYVmX_qnG+hxic-SOKGogKGbF-Q8Z33_Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:58:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxubBRNcpCtJZVCA1ZE-XfY3E_ut2DoNKCCWW5Pj1tj6MQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b33cb6cdaf23c04bcc85f60"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQle3vnKf6uqfLmYEF3CZ1mUDVvtHewI0NFBoq3T0k6FhK3+h+cI7KyYyivio43RtZFhgj75
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Identity and PSTN gateways
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: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:58:17 -0000

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> I don't say that SRTP-DTLS is bad, not at all. I agree that it MUST be
> the preferred option for a WebRTC communication.
>

I actually would say that SRTP-DTLS is bad. It adds latency to call setup,
provides a bunch of features nobody needs, and does not map to SDES-SRTP
without re-encrypting the traffic. It has no deployed base and makes
interop a lot harder. Unfortunately this is the ony thing that provides
anything even remotely qualifying as secure communications right now. I
would prefer to see a new key exchange protocol designed instead of
DTLS-SRTP. I know that there is effort to patch DTLS-SRTP to fix call setup
delays, but all those patches will only make interop harder, since they
increase the number of necessary tests.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email