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

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2013/4/29 Tim Panton <[e-mail]>:
> I've seen this asserted more than once, but I'd love to see a _current_ example where
> you really have an existing network of SRTP/ICE/BUNDLE/RTCP-MUX capable
> legacy endpoints that you want to connect to webRTC without a media-level SBC or
> call recording.
>
> My fear is that people are just basing anti-DTLS opinions on the perceived difficulty of
> building such a network in the future.
>
> I'm ok with legacy interop as a secondary goal of this WG , but putative-future-legacy interop
> is going too far IMHO, especially since it further complicates the already tricky problem of
> defining interoperable SDP.
>
> If it is a choice between adding complexity in a legacy gateway or every browser
> I'd rather add it in the gateway.


Hi Tim, let's please separate DTLS and DTLS+EKT:


- DTLS-SRTP:  I agree with you. It seems that people consider it a
barrier for legacy interop (while it seems not so hard as implementing
ICE, bundle, rtcp-mix....). Anyhow a media gateway would do the job,
exactly as when using SDES-SRTP.

- DTLS-EKT-SRTP:  This requires a gateway sending like "re-INVITE" for
common operations as multimedia session transfer, which involves the
gateway becoming both a media gateway and a complex signaling B2BUA
(and we hate that, right?).



So please let's separate DTLS and DTLS+EKT since they are really
different options.


Best regards.


--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>