IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Mon, 14 November 2011 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 A9D6D21F8DC4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:35:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 DupDbjaSgXGD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:35:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F82C21F8DC3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:35:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool-173-49-135-74.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.135.74] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1RPyYl-0004Tv-TQ for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:34:59 -0600
Message-ID: <4EC134F3.5070504@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:34:11 -0500
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvQYVKOZF88WLCiRseg-qXQdOpKeDU_t9b-yA2GcDBT-w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOiPxz_swdaG6Aqoch1WAUtjNh4eOQy1QObCDXT_B8azg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtp+LQBRCHgbWdJyrSRcpNQ82i64TJgGtGPrE7+GKcEog@mail.gmail.com> <4EBC3475.90706@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxu_-+ZRsqpUBkFSj=tYtOKG0pK3JoQTZHwQGMuBCnp0Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuaWJ3SBv+0gac6EQy6-Lsb-LS_SBXk5FqObKy4mN6wNg@mail.gmail.com> <CCF4FC92-D5AA-43C8-A0B2-8041C9B8E1BD@edvina.net> <CAD5OKxs-pWwDBjwAu=mQVWRZa4H_YPpzQ31=0qxUUj-pJOErcg@mail.gmail.com> <A2DFC694-DBDF-4DB4-8DE0-DD638C7AF2BE@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfkU1qhLmhY9L373pF7j9zwHipFfu4mAuY49RDTNL7V5Vg@mail.gmail.com> <C11CACFE-FE5A-43F2-8B61-6ABC9965B7FC@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfkehnLmWuqBPMRki=tJDTHmJ0e6M3RGX-mDBJNzcAA_DQ@mail.gmail.com> <FCFB9735-FB48-45C1-9ADF-CA6DBE5299B1@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfkstuyuRJWEvsU7EtHE5V41zavdrN0OZ1OSWtv022P16Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkstuyuRJWEvsU7EtHE5V41zavdrN0OZ1OSWtv022P16Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:35:00 -0000

On 11/14/2011 4:53 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> But DTMF was the topic of the email.
>
> RTP/SRTP is unreliable so sending like-reliable information (DTMF's)
> over an unreliable stream is, for sure, not the best design. In WebRTC
> such reliable info could be sent over signaling or over the
> data-channel (both of them reliable). Why to choose the worst option?
> reply: to interoperate with existing VoIP protocols.

Note my other email I just sent - DTMF has a property not shared by the 
data streams - media synchronization.  I won't repeat all the arguments 
here, but there actually is a reason for delivering it in a media 
channel, totally regardless of legacy.  For a greenfield design, one 
*might* implement it as a separate media stream (m= line), but even 
there I'm not sure I would mandate it be separated.


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email