Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> - What does require "interoperability with SIP"? does it mean that
> WebRTC should allow plain RTP and no ICE? This has been discussed many
> times in this WG: Security in the media plane MUST NOT be optional, it
> MUST be a MUST. So sorry, but a legacy SIP device not implementing
> SRTP+ICE cannot interoperate with a WebRTC endoint. Period.
>

I disagree very strongly in regard to security. This is insane to require
features just for the sake of requiring them.This is not about
interoperability. It is about the fact that 99% of users will never need or
care about SRTP. They do not now for most of the web traffic. This is also
about the fact that developers will not be able to debug or troubleshoot
anything. If you get a quality problem, it would be next to impossible to
figure out what's causing it with everything encrypted. Even now, for
development, HTTPS only services allow HTTP. There are no debug tools for
the media plane except wireshark. And we are effectively taking it away.
So, why are we making this a requirement? It should not be any different
then HTTPS vs HTTP. I think it should be DTLS-SRTP with optional RTP. The
fact that RTP is allowed should be a part of the same user consent dialog
that is displayed when access to local media is allowed. If user agrees,
there is no harm to anybody, except the user.
_____________
Roman Shpount