Re: [rtcweb] Isolating data channels (Re: Asking TLS for help with media isolation)

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 07 April 2014 19:21 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 56FB81A07DE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:21:43 -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 cjkorgx4IbT3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24A31A04B9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id n0Hs1n0050QuhwU517MYJN; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:21:32 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id n7MY1n00N3ZTu2S3N7MYwu; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:21:32 +0000
Message-ID: <5342FABC.4080200@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:21:32 -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: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CABkgnnWWuU63Vd=gw+wrh2ADgVYtQzhoRzRE1sv5azJE=MhWDg@mail.gmail.com> <533F191D.8050109@alum.mit.edu> <CABkgnnVht5EmJ7a2LDh50ivjUdoTpJ8GannQKReBSJbVGQGmgA@mail.gmail.com> <53425BAF.4070105@alvestrand.no> <CABkgnnXKe65-30qkuhkCLmaUYVfe8vrWv9BCJzOvC7KaRwUH=g@mail.gmail.com> <5342DE6F.6040306@alvestrand.no> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484504B4D9C@TK5EX14MBXC298.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484504B4D9C@TK5EX14MBXC298.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1396898492; bh=RKRHH5tSQaJw+zyuzOAOygU/PvMcsM51TOTDHZkEEKI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=LgNoAWSJWR1+bng3/9AcRPGkURfWBKgW19kLlNM8zItPSXBRaJXoboup71E/qi6S+ biICAuROKA5UYdyZIBeiykSasae0cYDPfhRLNF63zKhc/Fb7uyUOWEgkfGtO9hiFvh 0rNG5Ujsil0akc8TOwFvZme1lxcXSRtUzuDHdn5Oo3Ga0rjizbGvz7JbBrk1UKs2Fi QRJui/4yvn6E0EB5agw2rE5V1abQzQgad+rVL/Up2bOdug7Z4qr2Ni573jpGXIMaV1 47IFYTBlaRjYyneqY8JadvQrmoC0c30h2ox7sbsa6HWqFUZSeAM1jXY1xTh+3KQQZb IOz/BbySfMk+A==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/XtbOdDLIGszycNumFQKgx932YIU
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Isolating data channels (Re: Asking TLS for help with media isolation)
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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:21:43 -0000

On 4/7/14 1:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
>
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald
>> Alvestrand
>> ...
>> (and to Matthew: At least we wouldn't have *yet* another congestion
>> context to manage, which would be the case with a separate TCP connection.
>> There are always tradeoffs.)
>
> If it was me (and at one time, it was) I would use a protocol that allows for multiplexing and prioritization of media and data channels over the same secure session with shared congestion state. Over such a protocol, opening another data stream for this purpose could be done immediately without even a round trip.
>
> RFC 7016 documents such an approach.

I see that the title starts with "Adobe's". Sigh.

If you want to entertain something other than existing solutions for 
media, why not simply run the RTP media streams over SCTP along with the 
data channels?

	Thanks,
	Paul