Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Thu, 13 June 2013 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
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 9E81621F99F0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4mPFoy74Ort3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2879821F99EF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id A53F823F0624; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:56:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.174]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:56:29 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
Thread-Index: AQHOZ49miZ7m4NUb00izoZsadWUrCZkzd5ww
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:56:28 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF115C8A0F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CA+9kkMDnjCNXGV0GU7x6gbbZMf4WiEuVvCRY8_Fix5tmdOB-Kg@mail.gmail.com> <AD220324-EEE7-4800-8512-FD7BADA9EC34@oracle.com> <CA+9kkMDY2Z_5_1uYJ1K_ZmrJB2a1-RE7V3aPqNHQg82DyagjCg@mail.gmail.com> <2975A93F-44DA-4020-B4DE-42E7ED98C08F@oracle.com> <CABkgnnXr+zUW5mUn1nGwz9nxtY29JT5Cz=_84DB_ZxbZGa-kBA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXr+zUW5mUn1nGwz9nxtY29JT5Cz=_84DB_ZxbZGa-kBA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 13 Jun 2013 10:56:35 -0000

Also agree with Hadriel and Martin here we seem to have been talking about an interim to discuss SDES for a long time and the IETF86 minutes stated that a virtual interim was the way forward. The last time we actually discussed this was at IETF83 about 15 months ago.

Personally I think we need to find a way to accommodate SDES in RTCWEB even if it requires some user authorization and/or indication in the browser regarding the risks. It is probably the primary interop issue that exists today regarding interop of WebRTC with the rest of the VoIP world.

Regards
Andy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Martin Thomson
> Sent: 12 June 2013 18:08
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture
> 
> On 12 June 2013 09:29, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com>;
> wrote:
> > We've had a lot of discussions on the list about this over the past
> couple
> > years.  I thought the general feeling was at this point we needed to
> discuss
> > it live - either in person or on a con call - because it was hard to
> follow
> > all the arguments in email.  Maybe that was just my feeling, but I
> could
> > swear some other people said the same thing at the last IETF 86
> meeting or
> > Boston interim.
> 
> That's consistent with my understanding.  This seems far less
> contentious than the video MTI discussion, but continuously deferring
> discussion hasn't helped.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb