Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

"Avasarala, Ranjit" <> Wed, 09 November 2011 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B88D21F8B4E for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:45:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.332
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OR7+aOvDRvyR for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:45:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D89321F8B1E for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:45:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([fe80::c4c3:4566:8b3b:ec85]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:45:09 +0800
From: "Avasarala, Ranjit" <>
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:45:07 +0800
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
Thread-Index: Acyew97IbCRXVkNoR4+ILwi8CKablgAAE69g
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:45:12 -0000

Ok so any consensus s far on which signaling would be used for negotiating these parameters - SIP/Jingle/etc..


-----Original Message-----
From: Olle E. Johansson [] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo
Cc: Avasarala, Ranjit; Ravindran Parthasarathi; Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); Cullen Jennings (fluffy);
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

9 nov 2011 kl. 10:34 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo:

> 2011/11/9 Avasarala, Ranjit <>om>:
>> I feel including all kinds of security mechanisms like SRTP, TLS, etc in browser would make the browser very bulky.
> Including TLS in a browser makes it bulky? Then we must discourage
> HTTPS usage, right?
> In the other side, have you really measured how much expensive SRTP
> is? it's not at all.
This kind of argument is just a no-op. We need to be able to move forward and as Eric has said on this list, these arguments against encryption is no longer valid.
You could use this against HTTP clients in SIP (SIP identity) and the whole ICE engine too. Moore's law is always helping :-)

>> It would be better to provide a mechanism in the signaling protocol that browser supports to negotiate the desired security mechanism (depending on application requirement) and then use that mechanism (which is part of the system).
> The "application" is untrusted by nature, and we don't want to make
> the end-user to decide whether to trust it or not. Explained many
> times in this maillist.

Agree, we have explained this a number of times. If we leave this up to the web developers and users, we'll end up in trouble.