Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C700821F8DDC for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:06:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.36 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.238, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4sDudAgHMkfI for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:06:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc3-s10.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s10.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2AE21F8DCB for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:06:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU405-EAS402 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s10.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:06:07 -0800 X-EIP: [j7Dov//LC+M1u97f2lAJ54i2UvgTXpjF] X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_96b88778-77d3-43a5-a7a3-d698983d8866_" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Dale R. Worley" , Michael Tuexen From: Bernard Aboba Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:06:04 -0800 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2013 07:06:07.0680 (UTC) FILETIME=[697B5C00:01CE1714] Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org 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: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 07:06:09 -0000 --_96b88778-77d3-43a5-a7a3-d698983d8866_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Why would we want unsecured SCTP either for the WebRTC data channel or CLUE= signaling? Let's not invent problems when we have enough real ones. ________________________________ From: Dale R. Worley Sent: =E2=80=8E3/=E2=80=8E1/=E2=80=8E2013 11:58 AM To: Michael Tuexen Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB > From: Michael Tuexen > As far as I understand it is easy (based on the first byte) to demux > DTLS from STUN and SRTP. SCTP is the only payload for DTLS=2C so there > is no need for demuxing. So no need to control SCTP ports. Or am I > missing something? Controlling port numbers is needed if SCTP is *not* encapsulated in DTLS and yet has to be distinguished from RTP et al. (That would become significant if encryption was applied to the bundle's packet stream as a whole=2C rather than to the constituent streams individually.) Dale _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb --_96b88778-77d3-43a5-a7a3-d698983d8866_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Why wou= ld we want unsecured SCTP either for the WebRTC data channel or CLUE signal= ing? Let's not invent problems when we have enough real ones.
From: Dale R. Worley
Sent: =E2=80=8E3/=E2=80=8E1/=E2=80=8E2013 11:58 AM
To: Michael Tuexen
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT Agenda for RTCWEB

>=3B From: Michael Tuexen <=3BMichael.Tuexen@l= urchi.franken.de>=3B

>=3B As far as I understand it is easy (based on the first byte) to demux=
>=3B DTLS from STUN and SRTP. SCTP is the only payload for DTLS=2C so the= re
>=3B is no need for demuxing. So no need to control SCTP ports. Or am I >=3B missing something?

Controlling port numbers is needed if SCTP is *not* encapsulated in
DTLS and yet has to be distinguished from RTP et al. =3B (That would become significant if encryption was applied to the bundle's packet
stream as a whole=2C rather than to the constituent streams
individually.)

Dale
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o= rg/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
--_96b88778-77d3-43a5-a7a3-d698983d8866_--