Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

[Cb B <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Cb B <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Cb B <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But that's not the point.  The question is can we include native SCTP
>> >> as an option in  draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports?  What is the downside?
>> >>
>> >> CB
>> >
>> >
>> > Howdy,
>> >
>> > Given previous decisions of the working group, you would need to
>> > describe
>> > how to provide confidentiality.  At the moment, I know only of TLS over
>> > SCTP
>> > (which would reverse the current mapping) and SCTP over IPSec (which
>> > would
>> > likely actually be IPSec/UDP); do you know of other methods which would
>> > keep
>> > SCTP at the top layer of the protocol stack and still provide
>> > confidentiality?
>> >
>> > regarsd,
>> >
>> > Ted
>> >
>>
>> I believe the cleanest would be to do TLS over SCTP.  I understand
>> that changes the top of the transport stack, and create variation.
>> But, i don't think current SCTP over DTLS plan has won any beauty
>> prizes.  If this is standards track work that must stand the test of
>> time, TLS over SCTP seems appropriate.
>>
>
> This requires a completely new method for providing channel abstractions.
>
> If you would like the working group to consider a change of that magnitude,
> a worked draft describing a solution that meets all of the use cases set out
> in
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-07 seems to me the bare minimum to consider
> overturning the established working group consensus on this point.
>
> Speaking personally, I do not see sufficient SCTP/IP deployment to warrant
> further discussion on this point.  The working group has invested
> considerable
> time and effort on this approach and the likely result of this change seems
> to
> me either a less deployable system or one which will deploy later because of
> the
> need to start discussions over.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>

Acknowledged.  That is approximately the story arc i expected before I
initiated the conversation.

CB

>
>
>>
>> CB
>
>