Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 12 March 2014 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 CC5331A0897 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.925
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, 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 tDTOclINkrGa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x229.google.com (mail-ve0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0971A03A7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f169.google.com with SMTP id pa12so9863760veb.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=tFVsn11fFRPtRwH9l6YvvaGPlQcid0EZSejAGqgeCZU=; b=Mmb+iEVdq//qy9e3iluM91hYM+Wlsrp2rc3i0xnCLLSYNBFxlBpTuD3QrmihzoJknP UFY+yO8hSwoZ1lKQFwUJH1FxzkN2AIljKgKeG6eX8I9+r0HMnq85/6JhhzBWaoJFnH6n XxnGw8AAM9aXi/5XC3MvRzh0zCqQtvwPFhvC0UQ7OlbKauX/W3vdO8d9UEdP9F1+mn/p eYpAUXGLWb9S1WUJAGZ122QB4hYydDnT5DjrdCuvERqksc4sBWdbi+xnES5UOUiNqC5x w3wNdoLW+F/mA2k4nwE3oELQdvaz1NjxDHlh1/RiOiLmsS1yPhNjp/2QqFIN3ypB+wmv 5P7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=tFVsn11fFRPtRwH9l6YvvaGPlQcid0EZSejAGqgeCZU=; b=NoxJ1ue6b15I0lXfTd2nERk/4+/ZrRqX8w0Chx8JRveJ0VEYa2NRwZ4IYxKkHnRLe8 kYM37B2or7U+bCPyuENj+iFJ2aMQYvpO9wYVjJ27HRJ1tp3GWDZLHO3/aTntjS4Fv2zP 5ZkarEBoKO0vu2jY9cJ/jmjaVFBpPCSLM9rQzTd+6vNDXCGqg4VXDFh4ov0nIGJ+osFf J7IEu7MiYrgzKZydbA+Rcq56JqjOG53RjcHYPsGQX3TI7C9osk2DX5zVomyzWaJ1P65Q liVMwQhCv8OK4ZD/mtARobahXkNcfzxtCZjFgB1lfnSTlp1BL55Xh5qR4DnGtdabAAd6 JM8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQneVFmnMp/6i+h/R0CQhRgCuVfazwbt/27ZAva7HO2ESfCCB3WDAlKqLbGnbQDnroTxh5PLKRzZuIg43r6tpaph1CJAVxFdblcVwsaNfbhcsgrCBvuVa6lydT2FUjeys+S/S+j6A/BvkFQ5PUJXH01DY3d+IQw1riMfHf/l7JfsIRTAMExSgm8vUS/LXA/0pAaajWGr
X-Received: by 10.58.69.111 with SMTP id d15mr30412166veu.3.1394598104320; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.26.43 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dugjdQvXtFczz6fAmMzyU104VkcjnmoT8h4+bV1yQa9aQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1BC59A5D-D1C9-4E3F-ABFB-C1D664CD7ACF@cisco.com> <CAOW+2dugjdQvXtFczz6fAmMzyU104VkcjnmoT8h4+bV1yQa9aQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:21:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2-CQ9Oqk8FqR_gM31BerFJSeo-69xyrt3XQLXRE4E3RA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c2469ce62d04f4612cde
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/pol5vbTjfEZZ6zl7bMvKMQguMHo
Cc: "Cullen Jennings \(fluffy\)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 Client-to-Mixer Audio Level
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: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:21:53 -0000

I agree we need to mandate implementation of encryption for the c2m audio
level headers. For actual use, what controls do we want - the ability to
offer one of (encrypted, encrypted + unencrypted, none)?

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

> Cullen said:
>
> "I am opposed to mandating that Client-to-Mixer Audio Level RTP header is
> REQUIRED to be encrypted. It means that we can not really build
> conferencing system where the mixers do not have access to decrypt the
> media."
>
> [BA] I am also not enthused about mandating encryption of header
> extensions. However, in the interest of fairness, it is worth pointing out
> that header extensions are optional, so if a particular extension is
> encrypted, the mixer can always ignore it (and in this case, thereby do
> more work mixing muted audio streams).  So my take would be to say SHOULD
> encrypt Client-to-MIxer Audio level, but leave this up to negotiation so
> that if the mixer doesn't want it encrypted, it can turn that off.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> I am opposed to mandating that Client-to-Mixer Audio Level RTP header is
>> REQUIRED to be encrypted. It means that we can not really build
>> conferencing system where the mixers do not have access to decrypt the
>> media.
>>
>> I would like to propose that the JS application can control  if the
>> header is encrypted or not.
>>
>> I am aware of the paper that suggests these audio levels can reveal the
>> contents of the conversation. There is some element of truth to this. There
>> is also some element of truth to the point that if this was true, speech
>> recognition system would work better than they do. Encrypting this or not
>> is a risk that the application using the header extension needs to
>> evaluate, and WebRTC system needs to provide the applications with a
>> control surfaces that allows them to use this in the way the applications
>> desires.
>>
>> I will note that an normal application that used this header could decide
>> if it was encrypted or not, what is different in RTCWeb is that we are
>> building a platform and my view is that this platform should allow the
>> applications build on the platform to decide the tradeoffs of risk for
>> encrypting this or not.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>