Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn-00.txt

Paul Kyzivat <> Thu, 10 April 2014 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA4D1A017D for <>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4D3PqhFpWvFn for <>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:243]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A631A0145 for <>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with comcast id oC1d1n0031swQuc5DEniM9; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([]) by with comcast id oEni1n00E3ZTu2S3bEniFg; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:47:42 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20140121; t=1397141262; bh=JtyfIw+4ApYPOf4ae/Elh+g2IfzXwgMyY/B3sJCs6xs=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=H6NUk9+PIS8q09pCwnBuRqn02kqWVetqNrbxgjU2sRu3SF+5CbWrTw42OsdIGdPWh M/jDjhjSXKkwdTBFc+ZCyHfqS5XsvTSNHr2BItWqZwjZxpAdjqZWb6JTmvr43Z2OcO J6bWGlUXE7El790sik7oDpumSsuf7uRk+PvYpTg8V1yvE3tvzZzwIm1U5njLwduBTw yAq3peVpatHB1ZntCXYEpqZnVPdZejC7ui6c0ztGuwOID2Hz1bDYi1EEyhw7ALnQeT H3/trnoBHGPTi8Cd1xmcXFz8u91K7BtAN+vJysZ3hCQDfFvOfO+ZZ8jjHJbrRwGpBq DHVL2PdYbmvOQ==
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:47:44 -0000

On 4/9/14 5:25 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 9 April 2014 13:56, Paul Kyzivat <> wrote:
>> I expect two different protocols to look different on the wire.
>> You seem to be saying that SMTP used to talk to ietf mailing lists is a
>> different protocol from SMTP used to talk to my lawyer, because I expect my
>> lawyer to keep the communications confidential.
> They are different on the wire.  They use different identifiers.
> That's hair splitting, but there's a real difference between the two
> usages.  And I think that it's important enough to do this.
> Do you perhaps have an alternative, or is it just that this lack of
> solidity is giving you heartburn?  Because I can appreciate that.


It seems like a hack - tunneling - just looking for *something* that can 
be used to convey one more bit of data.

I don't have another suggestion. I only half understand the problem. But 
to the extent that I do, it seems ill-defined. AFAIK it only really has 
meaning in the context of a browser. Once you start signaling it, it 
gets fuzzier. If you *knew* both ends were controlled by a browser 
following these conventions then it would be a bit clearer. But when 
that ceases to be true I can make no sense of what it all means. And as 
best I understand, the isolation is intended to be per-media-stream, so 
solutions that are at a different level seem problematic.