Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn-00.txt

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 09 April 2014 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 CD5E81A0089 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 AlfXd3HdgzAE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05171A023F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id nsEp1n0041c6gX858wwCAz; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:56:12 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id nwwB1n00v3ZTu2S3jwwB0b; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:56:12 +0000
Message-ID: <5345B3EB.4050108@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 16:56:11 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <20140409180350.13315.51677.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABkgnnUfT_bRmFW7j09yWJPEOCz9xEjKjbHa=FXK284aEnyDyQ@mail.gmail.com> <53459BBB.1080505@alum.mit.edu> <CABkgnnUqyS71bT-PFBjJG5zSi_0Z-4E025Ez2MrbROXP7ZcH7w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUqyS71bT-PFBjJG5zSi_0Z-4E025Ez2MrbROXP7ZcH7w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1397076972; bh=jG0LDdqj3rZl/7oP0uHcPOjn91o0o4KbiA+KdTbHutw=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=UIvpnnh/ljTdXYdGsO0gaoKrrzbwojQ/iNoPou8r8Nsa0NqlkdSH9Bl9ROzypmekl UTi492bGROkL+ZXgvPzTUrBUVsFvgqZRwkVmw5pw2p945VNy3jM+imnNA0CQ+l8Bvf OsQfVzm3pNVrp7M1otNgK23KJlk8Dv4GjBwRbJcgL0AN/H54d7YOyOnVjik+HE0+gM 5AfHlzgDyPpngu9RAGgu7zlMgN5aB/aOZlGicsDE39PIpQ/Ovl49owFvx1BnqD0NDS p3XW3+kpuhr0LiMGvCKETHNT45gxSjDBBxJziAj53UXg97JF6BfwFtGDRYFWjY7BPh bYnfeX+W1A4gg==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/VthYbEChmExChtWgKDno5T5tDaE
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn-00.txt
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: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:56:14 -0000

On 4/9/14 3:52 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 9 April 2014 12:12, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> But what is the *protocol*? I don't see that mentioned in the draft at all.
>
> There are two.  Those two are described (perhaps not explicitly
> enough) in the list in Section 2.

Not explicitly enough, IMO.

>> IIUC it must be the multiplexing of STUN, SRTP, and SCTP over DTLS. (Maybe
>> not STUN - maybe that is *below* or *beside* DTLS.) I see how it could make
>> sense to use ALPN to verify that this is the intended use of the DTLS
>> session. But that isn't even mentioned in the draft.
>
> Yeah, STUN isn't inside DTLS, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to
> "negotiate" its use.
>
>> And, from a protocol perspective, what is the difference between webrtc and
>> c-webrtc? AFAICT this is just two different usages of the same "protocol",
>> not two different protocols.
>
> Yep.  But that's what a protocol is.

Not in my book. I expect two different protocols to look different on 
the wire.

You seem to be saying that SMTP used to talk to ietf mailing lists is a 
different protocol from SMTP used to talk to my lawyer, because I expect 
my lawyer to keep the communications confidential.

	Thanks,
	Paul