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

"Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com> Wed, 09 November 2011 03:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mperumal@cisco.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 659BF1F0C44 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 19:42:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.923, 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 e0OyJMbl1xc0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 19:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50EF121F8493 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 19:42:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mperumal@cisco.com; l=3473; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1320810153; x=1322019753; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=TV1jT7ohHDIPBmrUWt7qfyVNR76sKiSR71UtYEKrUNY=; b=i8fxEmdPjklqF+BxuaJit1Xjg28kbbwmYmsjaZMk9S6INgmVglBhe5px 9xMpbpG5YT8dftMgUFf3uowZiZoUClADLHAa0GqXvu9qxc8VN8179w0v4 +4bD/iY/rcHutz6vnW9b4Pn0FiiEoEvYi6xZ4xCeS9R93fBMnoIrg+8cK I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqUAAKv1uU5Io8UQ/2dsb2JhbABDmiKOXoEmgQWBcgEBAQQBAQEPAR0KLAUDCwwEAgEIDgMEAQELBhcBBgEmHwkIAgQBCggIARmHaJl9AZ56iEpjBIgJkVKMPA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,481,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="2683354"
Received: from bgl-core-1.cisco.com ([72.163.197.16]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Nov 2011 03:42:27 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com [72.163.129.201]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA93gRbc007604; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 03:42:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-414.cisco.com ([72.163.129.210]) by xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:12:26 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:12:22 +0530
Message-ID: <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B7FD@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
Thread-Index: AQHMm7/XxS9yQix74UmCewMPtvNQWZWe2WiAgABcZwCAAFnsgIAA1PQAgACv/gCAAAVogIAAGdwAgAHTzND//7JMAIAAEPMAgAESTSCAAAmSMA==
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com><8A61D801-D14D-408B-9875-63C37D0CC166@acmepacket.com><CABw3bnPE=OY_h5bM7GA6wgrXiOBL8P4J0kw1jLv-GSpHAbg=Cg@mail.gmail.com><CABcZeBNqdkh8u=gwOvKfDCQA7rXdAyQkfaM1r2Sx10787btP6A@mail.gmail.com><B10FEFF6-0ADC-4DB1-83BB-50A11C65EC35@acmepacket.com><CABcZeBNSXtim_VqzqAd8Z-u4zWSjaYmsVZPN=7sDYkJsgtRAHA@mail.gmail.com><4EB7E6A5.70209@alvestrand.no><F8003BA9-BCD8-4F02-B514-8B883FF90F91@acmepacket.com><387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349D81@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com><845C03B2-1975-4145-8F52-8CEC9E360AF3@edvina.net><5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
From: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
To: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2011 03:42:26.0905 (UTC) FILETIME=[9976D490:01CC9E91]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:42:34 -0000

|"1) Security could be in the lower layer itself 
|(IPsec, VPN, private MPLS cloud). For Enterprise-only-
|WebRTC application (no federation & no interop), 
|there is no need of security for specific application
|like WebRTC as it is ensured in the infrastructure.

One of the primary deployments for SRTP I've come across is actually
within the enterprise -- financial institutions and defense
establishments concerned about eavesdropping within their organization.
The fact that the WAN connection is secured using IPSec VPN or a private
leased line isn't good enough for such deployments.

Muthu

|-----Original Message-----
|From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Ravindran Parthasarathi
|Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:28 AM
|To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); Olle E. Johansson
|Cc: <rtcweb@ietf.org>
|Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
|
|Cullen,
|
|As I mentioned in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg02674.html, below
comment #2
|is not valid in IETF.
|
|But I'm interested in your opinion as Enterprise UC expert on my 1st
comment:
|
|"1) Security could be in the lower layer itself (IPsec, VPN, private
MPLS cloud). For Enterprise-only-
|WebRTC application (no federation & no interop), there is no need of
security for specific application
|like WebRTC as it is ensured in the infrastructure. WebRTC security
will be duplicated for these
|infrastructure and may lead to double encryption unnecessarily."
|
|Thanks
|Partha
|
|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
|>Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:29 PM
|>To: Olle E. Johansson
|>Cc: Ravindran Parthasarathi; <rtcweb@ietf.org>
|>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
|>
|>
|>On Nov 8, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
|>
|>>>
|>>> 2) Being in India, I'm interested in avoiding Government
restriction
|>on WebRTC proposal (Thanks to Tim for pointing this). I may not
surprise
|>to see that WebRTC mechanism is banned in India because intelligent
|>agency struggles to break the key in each terrorist WebRTC site.
|>(http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/235639/india_wants_to_i
nt
|>ercept_skype_google_communications.html)
|>> That is an interesting objection. I don't think SRTP by default is
the
|>problem here. In the case where you need lawful interception in the
|>application,
|>> the server needs to route the calls through an RTCweb b2b media
|>server.
|>
|>I think the situation in India is a taxiation not encryption issue.
|>Partha and I can do VoIP between Canada and India fully encrypted no
|>problem - in fact we have a dial plan set up specifically so I can do
|>that with him. The issue is a taxation issue. If we want to be able to
|>connect that voip server to the PSTN in a way that it becomes what the
|>regulators in India consider a telephone service, then we need
|>permission to effectively be an indian telco. Right now I can make a
|>full SRTP encrypted conversation with between my IP phones and
Partha's
|>but I don't think Partha can use his IP phone to access one the the
PSTN
|>GWs outside India.
|>
|>Anyways, I will remind people of RAVEN http://www.rfc-
|>editor.org/rfc/rfc2804.txt
|>
|
|_______________________________________________
|rtcweb mailing list
|rtcweb@ietf.org
|https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb