Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

Adding DTLS is a little effort compared to adding ICE / bundle / SAVPF to a
device. I could understand the latency problem argument however, but not
the "easy interop" argument which has become a headache and forced the SDP
API adoption which makes WebRTC much harder than it could be.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>
El 26/04/2013 19:27, "DRUTA, DAN" <[e-mail]> escribió:

> I would like to see the user-agent support for SDES as a "MUST" for RTCWeb.
> I don't think I need to restate why. One additional point though is that
> it will make interop easier, expand and accelerate the adoption for
> RTCWeb/WebRTC. Isn't this the ultimate goal?
> In regards to security considerations I would challenge the group to come
> up with ways to identify and convey the risks back to the end user through
> the user-agent implementation in a very simple and easy to understand UI
> (if necessary). I know this could be a big rat hole and I can hear already
> arguments that it's already too confusing but as the Web is becoming more
> of a platform and browser complexity increases we should acknowledge it
> with better transparency rather than with restrictions and limitations.
> Users make their own decisions in the end.
>
> Best Regards,
> Dan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Oscar Ohlsson
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 7:57 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
>
> I'm also in favour of supporting SDES (no big surprise). But we need to
> analyze how SDES should be enabled and how it can be negotiated in SDP. If
> people are concerned with bidding down attacks then we could add a separate
> JavaScript instruction for enabling SDES. If SDES is not enabled then it
> wouldn't be offered or accepted.
>
> Regards,
>
> Oscar
>
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Xavier Marjou
> Sent: den 26 april 2013 10:50
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
>
> +1 for supporting SDES as a keying method for WebRTC
> Cheers,
> Xavier
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Hutton, Andrew <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> Also agree that we should support SDES in additional to DTLS-SRTP.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > Behalf Of Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
> > Sent: 25 April 2013 22:55
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
> >
> > I also agree that we should support SDES in addition to DTLS-SRTP.
> >
> > This raises a further question about SCTP/DTLS for DataChannels.  It
> > seems that if we support SDES-SRTP, don't we also need to provide an
> > SDES keying mechanism for DataChannels?  Ekr: What is needed to realize
> > this?
> >
> > Richard Ejzak
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:28 PM
> > > To: Bogineni, Kalyani; 'Cullen Jennings'; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
> > >
> > > I agree. The ability to set the cipher suite and keys from JavaScript
> > > is critical for certain applications. SDES is the best we'll get with
> > > SDP as the API. DTLS-SRTP-only would be unacceptably limiting.
> > >
> > > Matthew Kaufman
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > > Behalf Of Bogineni, Kalyani
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:21 PM
> > > > To: 'Cullen Jennings'; [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and
> > RTCWeb
> > > >
> > > > We would like to support the use of SDES as a keying method for
> > > WebRTC.
> > > >
> > > > Kalyani Bogineni
> > > > Verizon
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > > Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:57 AM
> > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: [rtcweb] SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568) and RTCWeb
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The working groups committed some time ago to have a further
> > > > discussion on whether SDP Security Descriptions (RFC 4568 aka SDES)
> > > > would be usable as a keying method for WebRTC.  As we prepare for
> > > that
> > > > discussion, we'd like to have expressions of interest or support
> > for
> > > > that approach which indicate the general outlines of support
> > > proposed.
> > > > If you wish to make such an expression of support, please send it
> > to
> > > the chairs or the list.
> > > >
> > > > Cullen, Magnus, & Ted <The Chairs>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>