IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoints [was RE: Use Case draft]

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Thu, 03 May 2012 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 983EB21F84EB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 22:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ssYgXbo1i3hG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 22:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys010aog108.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog108.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B368921F84E1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 22:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usma-ex-hub1.sonusnet.com ([69.147.176.212]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob108.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT6IWTOqsukH5DBevqBS77Gy/LfVSaohy@postini.com; Wed, 02 May 2012 22:23:26 PDT
Received: from INBA-HUB01.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.86) by usma-ex-hub1.sonusnet.com (66.203.90.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Thu, 3 May 2012 01:23:30 -0400
Received: from INBA-MAIL02.sonusnet.com ([fe80::f8d4:7090:f632:bbbc]) by inba-hub01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::5cbc:2823:f6cc:9ce7%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 3 May 2012 10:53:20 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: "Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)" <lists@infosecurity.ch>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoints [was RE: Use Case draft]
Thread-Index: AQHNKKWIuKsxE8MawUGJNFdYP/EC9pa3iCfQ
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 05:23:19 +0000
Message-ID: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C1489473F@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com>
References: <CA+9kkMCYArLPRP3c00UdOja64WRT6ghN0PSy7XvM_wbxBBB+vA@mail.gmail.com><E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD810616F066@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com><BLU169-W7C59E1EDB4CB06B648577932B0@phx.gbl><387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23AFFF@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com><2E496AC9-63A0-464A-A628-7407ED8DD9C4@phonefromhere.com><387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23B16B@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com><E2714FBC-D06B-4A12-9E07-C49EBF55084C@phonefromhere.com><4F9EC0B2.10903@alcatel-lucent.com><101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31299282765@MCHP058A.global-ad.net><CAJNg7VKENERKAFA-n5KeoeBNmGgHrnzDOU0BzC9+fSdsuGwdEw@mail.gmail.com><E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD810616F24F@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com> <4FA0F43E.4020308@ericsson.com> <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD810616F336@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com> <013101cd288c$09328250$1b9786f0$@com> <4FA19ECD.8030400@infosecurity.ch>
In-Reply-To: <4FA19ECD.8030400@infosecurity.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [121.242.142.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoints [was RE: Use Case draft]
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, 03 May 2012 05:23:27 -0000

Fabio,

Could you please explain how to differentiate through protocol means that the peer is site (gateway) or endpoint (webbrowser).

Thanks
Partha 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
>Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 2:24 AM
>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoints [was RE:
>Use Case draft]
>
>On 5/2/12 7:50 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-rtcweb-3.pdf
>> However, when I presented slide 7, there were objections at the
>> microphone that this model 'is broken'.  I would like to understand
>> the objections so we can reach consensus on how interworking from
>> WEBRTC to non-WEBRTC is expected to occur.
>
>IMHO it would be much easier, as described in tons of previous email, to
>use different Key Management for different requirements:
>
>- SDES + SRTP for end-to-site (peer to gateway)
>- DTLS-SRTP for end-to-end (peer to peer)
>
>It would be a simpler approach for:
>
>- Security (the user know the security level)
>- Interoperability (Use standard protocols for the need to interoperate)
>
>That way the "simpler, legacy, standard" technology would be used for
>all voip "server applications" while the new burning (yet not used by
>anyone) DTLS-SRTP will be used for peer-to-peer calls.
>
>Please DO NOT reinvent the wheel for what's already existing and
>deployed.
>
>Doing so, it's like going against the natural human behavior, it would
>just represent a failure.
>
>Fabio
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email