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

Jim Spring <jmspring@gmail.com> Mon, 19 May 2014 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jmspring@gmail.com>
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 75A1B1A0126 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 gXP13_d4XBrt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22a.google.com (mail-oa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA1051A0117 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j17so6510665oag.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9DiYsgXdtBmLbRP3zfwL3BV7AeImD1aVaDnvYJraMZE=; b=lRaLr8HXa+VncpVdAZ4JULDNKG3ERvuP68idcIl0zXL7w7bHoOFTR3v5MzQdFUzMoN mukbXVsa6eSJvXxovmwmdbMbrPQ8BWveNjuTseDfKdlJ8xm7q4Jsl8ZyT45zuRklvbek QQFNWBWnPQbEFr2xeAF9RqfWuxTmMbJJ/jScZ16pIfBO4x0BmaSypvUzNYIFWLt1jj8s tl6pGaSqsaXZs62Cwpw9PYyKcuOFOdtz65qR5ixLwbC9Y5ijjNjhjYeBp1IyQrFwEvKa 5zyWRmsYbWTPxZa8ll6Qn9diT+mQWjCDUZS9hgDkVj5KCRZeLiPPunH5XvMLDPvWGbzt 51lg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.243.138 with SMTP id wy10mr4011441obc.83.1400514958136; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.158.199 with HTTP; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5346AF0E.20500@alum.mit.edu>
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> <5346AF0E.20500@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 08:55:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF_CtF7JMJuJEi88JdSmTQY_0SL6zmBmNg+W7yfryGvUOOKEPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim Spring <jmspring@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2a120951c9c04f9c2cc73
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/lFIf_A3n2Gz5egXXeze7rRcgHa8
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: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:56:00 -0000

>From the text --

--

   The following four labels are defined for use in ALPN:

   webrtc  The DTLS session is used to establish keys for a Secure Real-
      time Transport Protocol (SRTP) - known as DTLS-SRTP - as described
      in [RFC5764].  The DTLS record layer is used for WebRTC data
      channels [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel].

   c-webrtc  The DTLS session is used for confidential WebRTC

      communications, where peers agree to maintain the confidentiality
      of the communications, as described in Section 3.

   A more thorough definition of what WebRTC communications entail is
   included in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports].

--

I see only two labels there.



On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>