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

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Sun, 13 November 2011 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
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 9097921F8B04 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:50:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.625
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mysb0D7mrL0E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:50:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe5b:8240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EFD21F8B01 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:50:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8:0:64:ca0a:a9ff:fe2e:a4f6] (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:64:ca0a:a9ff:fe2e:a4f6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "petithug", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAEEF20138; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:40:30 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4EC04998.9070300@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:50:00 -0500
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20111010 Icedove/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miguel Casas-Sanchez <miguelecasassanchez@gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.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> <CAMujMTyDnS7UHzqHcr=VKD26n2NSmz8wmRUK0E1XomTT6Wujow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMujMTyDnS7UHzqHcr=VKD26n2NSmz8wmRUK0E1XomTT6Wujow@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 22:50:08 -0000

On 11/13/2011 01:46 PM, Miguel Casas-Sanchez wrote:
> 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

I do not know why you and others are singling out DTMF.  I am no fan of building
stuff around carriers needs myself, but DTMF is a codec, no more, no less.  Even
the fast codec switching mechanism is not special - comfort noise use it too,
and a system that would recognize music and dynamically switch between audio and
MIDI would probably be considered innovative.

> 
> On Nov 13, 2011 3:24 p.m., "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com
> <mailto:juberti@google.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com
>     <mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com>> 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 <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Professional email: petithug@acm.org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org