Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level

tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05871A05C3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:04:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTMJrP13f7jE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:04:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001.apm-internet.net (smtp001-out.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.222]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9551A063E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 20816 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2014 15:04:46 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 10286
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 5 Mar 2014 15:04:46 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7AE18A0A60; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from dhcp-a471.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a471.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.164.113]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 101FE18A05C1; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:46 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <F99B5539-EEB7-4A3C-B8E4-4B6B607D8B2F@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:04:45 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7A408D4F-80C0-4C17-835E-C740036B6B76@phonefromhere.com>
References: <1BC59A5D-D1C9-4E3F-ABFB-C1D664CD7ACF@cisco.com> <EEF5B1D0-7782-4EB8-90DF-F1D56B2D2ADC@phonefromhere.com> <0526965B-6AC9-42F4-9E62-CF3BF29872D3@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-3JAKZDHtrx9J2v=hqksQ9xdz7XW_1HbqioEzWMqUrn7A@mail.gmail.com> <F99B5539-EEB7-4A3C-B8E4-4B6B607D8B2F@cisco.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/gsntHQwL-L5-zeIqvj55fCYotvo
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:04:54 -0000

On 5 Mar 2014, at 14:41, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> So there are three things here:
>> 1) MUST the implementation offer encrypted header extensions? (i.e. mandatory-to-implement)
> I’m fine with yes
> 
>> 2) MUST the implementation use encrypted header extensions? (i.e. mandatory-to-use)
> I think this needs to be No. Never mind my current use case - if the far end does not negotiate RFC 6094 with the browser, the media and headers should not fail. 
> 
>> 3) MUST the implementation expose an API to control this? (i.e. no SDP munging needed)
> I prefer control surfaces to SDP munging but as you say, I could live with SDP munging in 1.0 
> 
>> 
>> I think we want yes for #1, no for #2, and #3 is potentially interesting but out of scope for 1.0.
>> That gives encrypted headers for audio on by default, but remote parties can negotiate this off using RFC 6904 mechanisms.
>> 
> 
> 
> seems workable 

For the record, I still don’t like the idea that the far end can bid-down encryption on this header, but I suppose if my app cares it will have to not offer to do that header extension at all. (Hopefully it is a malleable SDP field).

Tim.