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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 10 April 2014 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 8CA4D1A017D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4D3PqhFpWvFn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A631A0145 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oC1d1n0031swQuc5DEniM9; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oEni1n00E3ZTu2S3bEniFg; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +0000
Message-ID: <5346AF0E.20500@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:47:42 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <20140409180350.13315.51677.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABkgnnUfT_bRmFW7j09yWJPEOCz9xEjKjbHa=FXK284aEnyDyQ@mail.gmail.com> <53459BBB.1080505@alum.mit.edu> <CABkgnnUqyS71bT-PFBjJG5zSi_0Z-4E025Ez2MrbROXP7ZcH7w@mail.gmail.com> <5345B3EB.4050108@alum.mit.edu> <CABkgnnXZJ_LPnQN8eP4B9BCamuT=o9BW=Ej95Er9mQhQmwqh6w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXZJ_LPnQN8eP4B9BCamuT=o9BW=Ej95Er9mQhQmwqh6w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; 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==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/j_mIE638wz2Hj5A-DYcXLqvEUNg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn-00.txt
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: 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 <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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.

Heartburn.

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.

	Thanks,
	Paul