Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and requirements

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 03:57 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 5D97E21F8A85 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.787
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.188, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TxXFOP0pWIGn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7356521F88D2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=2169; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1310011052; x=1311220652; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EBXoJlmrwdAUlUMTpSto4kTY3JPUZqiv3OR2CDSVSIM=; b=ioBpUyvlRyaiTigEP1VURAafTSGco3D6YXKDdcm9f4SesZuXD0s0JVF4 UNRGgg/J8ECfuTIAJRsT0VPla5DYNRU1yaLwZP1GGTKc81NvtBtOCNHwu 9GGY0fb0g7F3ifPphUcLAvhaoS1UkR0PifDQinhUghdjb14Be69sXvlva 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAHYtFU6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABGDagXd4h7pRKdfYMigxUEh0mKfYR9i2M
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,491,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="519889"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2011 03:57:28 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (rcdn-fluffy-8712.cisco.com [10.99.9.19]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p673vRiY023155; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:57:28 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: <4E0832FE.7010401@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:57:27 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3B711EF7-9FC9-4E0C-A9D1-E115F41AF02D@cisco.com>
References: <4E0832FE.7010401@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and requirements
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:57:33 -0000

On Jun 27, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> 
> Does anyone like to add additional use cases?

BFCP 

I'm interested in the use cases that have real time requirements and latency is an issue.

> 
> 
> Are you supporting the inclusion of a unreliable datagram service
> directly between peers?
yes

> Please provide your view and any additional
> statements of motivation that you desire to provide.
> 
> Secondly, there is a question if there needs to have something that
> provides reliable message (of arbitrary size) or byte stream oriented
> data transport between the peers.
I don't have a big need for this but don't have a problem with it if others need it 

> I personally foresee that people will
> build JS libraries for this on top of a unreliable datagram service. If
> you desire reliable data service as part of the standardized solution
> please provide motivation and use case and requirements.
> 
> I also want to take a stab on what I personally see as the requirements
> that exist on unreliable datagram service in the context of RTCWEB.
> 
> - Unreliable data transmission
+1 

> - Datagram oriented
>   * Size limited by MTU
>     - Path MTU discovery needed
+1

>   * Fragmentation by the application
+1

> - Low latency, i.e. Peer to Peer preferable
+5

> - Congestion Controlled, to be
>   * Network friendly
+1
>   * Not become a Denial of Service tool
+1

> - Security
>  * Confidentiality
+1
>  * Integrity Protected
+1
>  * Source Authenticated (at least bound to the signalling peer)
+1 - I might phrase this a bit differently but I think we are getting at the same thing. If we are going to have encryption, there no point in encrypting something if you have no idea you our sending encrypted data to and from. We need some sort of identity / autehntication

>  * Ensure consent to receive data
+5

In addition to your, I'd like to add that I am trying to maximize the odds of it making though the various NATs and Firewalls involved with and enterprise or home user. 

Cullen in my individual contributor role.