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

Cullen Jennings <> Tue, 08 November 2011 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD1C21F8B1B for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 07:59:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.415
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-i2LqGu6P2Y for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 07:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F74721F8B08 for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 07:59:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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 ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2011 15:59:07 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:59:06 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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. (
> 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