Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 A7BB021F84D8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:17:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.826
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.826 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 3C4UpoPTMgod for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:17:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD91C21F8E91 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:15:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iaeo4 with SMTP id o4so9061690iae.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:14:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=TIVfEVavQvMmo4Ha6roramLxLBgWTbu3QYCPSGgyV3s=; b=gt1Ydr6o1YqtdAo5z4fS5l2xKX6rADnub7DgHrzivwogvEGdIbxk75/WFPsGrTVcSK cF9jwewFGSozKRAcrAcg==
Received: by 10.231.69.146 with SMTP id z18mr5089757ibi.79.1321262055274; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.69.146 with SMTP id z18mr5089750ibi.79.1321262055122; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:14:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.194.134 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:13:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABRok6mJx+quBzdzRZ8fX774+kj-ABWJJvPB=P7=7R5s=ZA2Yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B7FD@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A105@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804691DA2@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <CALiegfmf59jb4asUu9LA6YY_aMtKEnM1Wy34KbuLEn3_h1xBXA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmM1PB=VAQjfh4rW3-3C8aumHdWy9nZxD0-BWBq9Kq_tg@mail.gmail.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3BA57@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <CALiegfkWnRT8m4S9pXTxuLsc-p_bhkG3d=PX3qgiFFt5gW5yfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvQYVKOZF88WLCiRseg-qXQdOpKeDU_t9b-yA2GcDBT-w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOiPxz_swdaG6Aqoch1WAUtjNh4eOQy1QObCDXT_B8azg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtp+LQBRCHgbWdJyrSRcpNQ82i64TJgGtGPrE7+GKcEog@mail.gmail.com> <4EBC3475.90706@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxu_-+ZRsqpUBkFSj=tYtOKG0pK3JoQTZHwQGMuBCnp0Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuaWJ3SBv+0gac6EQy6-Lsb-LS_SBXk5FqObKy4mN6wNg@mail.gmail.com> <CCF4FC92-D5AA-43C8-A0B2-8041C9B8E1BD@edvina.net> <CAD5OKxs-pWwDBjwAu=mQVWRZa4H_YPpzQ31=0qxUUj-pJOErcg@mail.gmail.com> <A2DFC694-DBDF-4DB4-8DE0-DD638C7AF2BE@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfkU1qhLmhY9L373pF7j9zwHipFfu4mAuY49RDTNL7V5Vg@mail.gmail.com> <C11CACFE-FE5A-43F2-8B61-6ABC9965B7FC@acmepacket.com> <CAOJ7v-3w4t0oYKs+01srAmPGziYt6vVZNOQwbpZ7YWUFZtP20w@mail.gmail.com> <CABRok6mJx+quBzdzRZ8fX774+kj-ABWJJvPB=P7=7R5s=ZA2Yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:13:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3W36MGn+8UDo3C2WWtnzJQ4GcB8qkoXy5zucJxjmF1zw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015176f10da73666f04b1ae4bb7
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Traffic should be encrypted. (Re: Let's define the purpose of WebRTC)
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:17:35 -0000

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>wrote;wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> As a non-"telco" participant in this WG, I strongly agree with this. DTMF
>> has a clear upside (support for PSTN) and no downside other than the need
>> for a new API method.
>>
>
> This is my concern, that we are proposing a codec specific API method when
> we have ruled out exposing APIs for other codecs.
>
> If two peers have negotiated a data channel between them it doesn't make a
> lot of sense to send DTMF over RTP, it should be carried over the reliable
> data channel. So if we do expose an API for sending tones, can it be done
> in such a way that it can be carried using whatever the most appropriate
> transport is? (obviously without requiring any javascript changes - because
> we can't expect javascript developers to upgrade)
>
>
If two peers have negotiated a data channel, it doesn't make sense to use
DTMF at all. I can see the converse argument to make the DataStream API use
DTMF if it is the only thing available, in order to avoid adding a
DTMF-specific API, but I think the semantics are different enough that the
DTMF API is a better approach.

Regarding whether this API should be extended to be a generic codec API, I
think it should be obvious that the ability to send one of 12 well-defined
signals in a standardized manner is orders of magnitude simpler than the
configuration options available for modern video codecs.