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

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Mon, 14 November 2011 15:58 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 97BE711E82D7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:58:58 -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 3afhndVvKKRb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:58:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EABB11E828F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:58:58 -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 1RPyvx-0007Zt-G9 for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:58:57 -0600
Message-ID: <4EC13A91.9010909@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:58:09 -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> <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> <4EC134F3.5070504@jesup.org> <CABRok6=E941kYiOfo7J3Vq8nG-SqE9kcJJw1rv3cVNeyVE8rmg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABRok6=E941kYiOfo7J3Vq8nG-SqE9kcJJw1rv3cVNeyVE8rmg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 15:58:58 -0000

On 11/14/2011 10:47 AM, Neil Stratford wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org wrote:
>     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.
>
>
> How can we achieve the media synchronization in WebRTC? In a traditional
> RTC endpoint the DTMF comes from the same source as the media, in many
> cases it's actually taken from the media itself. However in WebRTC the
> only way to trigger a DTMF event is through an asynchronous Javascript
> function call, which is not synchonized to the media. Do we assume that
> the function call happens 'at about the right time' and take that as the
> current timestamp to use?

That speaks to the API needing tweaking - the JS app generally knows 
*when* (in realtime) the event occurred; it should pass that info in 
with the command to send it so the synchronized data can be correctly 
generated (along with the other timing info - duration or ongoing until 
told to stop).  ("When" could also include a special case for "now", 
defined as the current media clock position when the function call is 
processed.)


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org