Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Sun, 11 September 2011 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.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 7746D21F87F0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 CJM1-EW6Rr1r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA20621F87D9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so19503437pzk.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UlLFh3KE781/J+VSTYkfQTHiDFinQWdVMoRCmX2BOVU=; b=kjlDdI+18gL+Q83l9f2WQmLcsA3SJ5ymofYKcQ8baRax+mMZai7ZJVvrE4dM0k7KQq TwXnQDiUcqsHvGN9xrK8umq9C68pbaec0u/A77a1Vqodka/Rhn7/TS+Cwqqg5dCbeiO3 X0bjsaJZxwSzgUvgrWdn92MkA/AwaSc8iC6rk=
Received: by 10.68.34.169 with SMTP id a9mr1866965pbj.134.1315758970753; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-70-133-70-225.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net. [70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f6sm1720793pbp.2.2011.09.11.09.36.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6CE3F3.4040009@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:38:11 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>, <4E666926.8050705@skype.net> <43A0D702-1D1F-4B4E-B8E6-C9F1A06E3F8A@edvina.net>, <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7020E64DC@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com>, <E4EC1B17-0CC4-4F79-96DD-84E589FCC4F0@edvina.net> <4E67C3F7.7020304@jesup.org>, <BE60FA11-8FFF-48E5-9F83-4D84A7FBE2BE@vidyo.com> <4E67F003.6000108@jesup.org>, <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233E8554C@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>, <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC8230339CA68F054@BE235.mail.lan>, <CAOJ7v-2u0UuNXh7bzmZFwiSucbsh=Ps=C3ZM5M3cJrXRmZgODA@mail.gmail.com>, <CAKhHsXHXCkNdjtpxCSCk+ABbtxY15GEgouE6X6-sn-LqhnidQw@mail.gmail.com>, <4E6A56D4.2030602@skype.net>, <CABcZeBOdP6cAqBoiSV-Vdv1_EK3DfgnMamT3t3ccjDOMfELfBw@mail.gmail.com>, <CAKhHsXFdU1ZaKQF8hbsOxwTS-_RfmFqQhgzGe=K4mRp+wz+_nQ@mail.gmail.com>, <4E6A81EC.3080002@jesup.org>, <78CC1B42-392D-4311-9417-33CC702A2FD1@edvina.net> <BLU152-W180B13FA380DD5A23041493000@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W180B13FA380DD5A23041493000@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
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, 11 Sep 2011 16:34:15 -0000

I think the real question is more simple: if 32-bit audio "could be 
*required* for emergency services".

It doesn't seem standard beyond 24-bit, yet I can imagine the filter 
attempt for DSL-to-DTLS.

On 09/10/2011 04:03 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> [BA] Can you provide a citation for the assertion that confidentiality 
> could be *required* for an emergency services call?
>
> I am not aware of any such a regulatory requirement in the US.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: oej@edvina.net
> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:17:16 +0200
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AVPF [was: Encryption mandate (and offer/answer)]
>
>
> 9 sep 2011 kl. 23:15 skrev Randell Jesup:
>
>     3) May simplify/improve some E911 cases.  Might be important;
>     likely not.
>
>
> 911/112 cases might be typical phone calls that *require* 
> confidentiality. In Sweden 112 is used for a lot more than accidents - 
> call the priest, report child abuse and others that really are calls 
> that in now way should be listened-in to by other users on the LAN or 
> the IP network.
>
> /O
>
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
> rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>    


-- 
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant