Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 08 November 2011 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 1CD1C21F8B1B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 07:59:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.415
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 v-i2LqGu6P2Y for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 07:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F74721F8B08 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 07:59:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=1476; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1320767947; x=1321977547; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dL1XdmoCtabiGvZJk3RoQPAPvUlSgXRbdhToeJU2OQ4=; b=dOQ1XvmAo0aiMxCt8GN9LFM/SjeickzrDl5/PFEcn2mIw9YziH9RVOex +xlo4RwMl1cgxPjBqOt3M/rjN60jhbcEYybJZm8O0nTrsexC3eCjHdViX v63FSrryRuNxslDAnDOi2LBKIGgzJuUUkB/KK03QRsfU7C8cyY0HTd/EE 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwFAMdQuU6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABDqGGBJoEFgXIBAQEEEgEnLBMQC0ZXBjWHaJhXAZ8miEpjBIgLjBaFMYxd
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,477,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="12953804"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2011 15:59:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA8Fx61Q017381; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:59:06 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <845C03B2-1975-4145-8F52-8CEC9E360AF3@edvina.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:59:06 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <8A61D801-D14D-408B-9875-63C37D0CC166@acmepacket.com> <CABw3bnPE=OY_h5bM7GA6wgrXiOBL8P4J0kw1jLv-GSpHAbg=Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNqdkh8u=gwOvKfDCQA7rXdAyQkfaM1r2Sx10787btP6A@mail.gmail.com> <B10FEFF6-0ADC-4DB1-83BB-50A11C65EC35@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBNSXtim_VqzqAd8Z-u4zWSjaYmsVZPN=7sDYkJsgtRAHA@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7E6A5.70209@alvestrand.no> <F8003BA9-BCD8-4F02-B514-8B883FF90F91@acmepacket.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349D81@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <845C03B2-1975-4145-8F52-8CEC9E360AF3@edvina.net>
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:59:08 -0000

On Nov 8, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:

>> 
>> 2) Being in India, I'm interested in avoiding Government restriction on WebRTC proposal (Thanks to Tim for pointing this). I may not surprise to see that WebRTC mechanism is banned in India because intelligent agency struggles to break the key in each terrorist WebRTC site. (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/235639/india_wants_to_intercept_skype_google_communications.html)
> That is an interesting objection. I don't think SRTP by default is the problem here. In the case where you need lawful interception in the application,
> the server needs to route the calls through an RTCweb b2b media server.

I think the situation in India is a taxiation not encryption issue. Partha and I can do VoIP between Canada and India fully encrypted no problem - in fact we have a dial plan set up specifically so I can do that with him. The issue is a taxation issue. If we want to be able to connect that voip server to the PSTN in a way that it becomes what the regulators in India consider a telephone service, then we need permission to effectively be an indian telco. Right now I can make a full SRTP encrypted conversation with between my IP phones and Partha's but I don't think Partha can use his IP phone to access one the the PSTN GWs outside India. 

Anyways, I will remind people of RAVEN http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2804.txt