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

Miguel Casas-Sanchez <miguelecasassanchez@gmail.com> Sun, 13 November 2011 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <miguelecasassanchez@gmail.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 0F86621F8477 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:46:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.609, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 DAh02-Fk+kDi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008A421F8481 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyf28 with SMTP id 28so3859692wyf.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:46:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=x/WAM4/VThLxhJhWtugz1FvcdlsMtEdpQu3QLwEbkt4=; b=EL47N9QYg5jNpJtV4T4NmA1aXFiLtSuJCva3YKNKyJ66wqauHttynm3vT7rzUOXuyh IwPyKXToXA8fEAAHs9sabzZp2l8bqSW5er1M8xg6QqRkQ2dnS3b0saCkKApWW+HPRfJE ausTAkurnoBR5oyyk1gIqyUbfxEtG4LFz4EUI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.134.93 with SMTP id r71mr3491750wei.59.1321210017676; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.89.142 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.89.142 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:46:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3w4t0oYKs+01srAmPGziYt6vVZNOQwbpZ7YWUFZtP20w@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>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:46:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMujMTyDnS7UHzqHcr=VKD26n2NSmz8wmRUK0E1XomTT6Wujow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Miguel Casas-Sanchez <miguelecasassanchez@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502c85ec6fe5d04b1a22dc5
Cc: "&lt,rtcweb@ietf.org&gt," <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: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:46:58 -0000

İt is indeed very interesting to have interoperability with loads of
systems, but that should (personal opinion) be left to the applications,
and not be suggested in a standard that everyone will need to parse. So:
keep standard lean would be my vote (=leave dtmf out) try and focus on
mandatory and really nice-to-have features.
Miguel
On Nov 13, 2011 3:24 p.m., "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2011, at 6:38 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>
>> > No, please, forget DTMF's. No more "SIP" nor "PSTN" in this WG.
>>
>> First, DMTFs aren't just about SIP - it's used by other protocols as well.
>> But yes obviously it's about enabling WebRTC browsers to communicate with
>> non-WebRTC peers, including those in SIP, such as IVRs and voicemail
>> servers and so on - not just in "Telco's" but also in Enterprises.
>>
>> Some people in this WG don't want to worry about that, which is fine -
>> don't worry about it.  If you don't want to use RFC4733, your
>> Javascript/Server code doesn't have to worry about it.  But some people in
>> this WG *do* want to support interworking with other deployed
>> devices/domains.  So long as the mechanisms needed to do so don't hurt
>> WebRTC or force a specific architectural model, why do you care?
>>
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>