IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Tue, 27 September 2011 18:52 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 4AAAB21F8EC4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 Hb8nF4MaWpYz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D46021F8EBC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail06.sonusnet.com (sonusmail06.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.156]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8RItmc8016562; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:55:48 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail06.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:55:16 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC7D46.FD3E5C79"
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:25:11 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1120@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxvmKi3Py0gNcTdREdfS07hA-=f6L+u8KKVgSWztMft9kQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls
Thread-Index: Acx9RKxdtWZqVlkhRSumcfL0ddw6VwAAQNxw
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com><CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com><CALiegfmO54HC+g9L_DYn4jtXAAbLEvS++qxKa6TNrLDREs9SeA@mail.gmail.com><4E80984A.903@skype.net><CALiegfmyvTb57WVooKryS-ubfcg+w5gZ+zfO1zzBLn3609AzaA@mail.gmail.com><4E809EE6.2050702@skype.net><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1087@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><BLU152-W62B7F2AC3F0D5B6E277CB993F00@phx.gbl><CAD5OKxt=P3jg9N0weFUZLvUYQxyeXa+9YMtpc8wn7osuPQmTpg@mail.gmail.com><CAD5OKxtVCgiFV_iAYd1w0uZZcS5+gsixOHJ0jGN=0CMdq++kdg@mail.gmail.com><CAOJ7v-3PrnNyesL+x-mto9Q9djjiJ13QZHXCiGfY1mv3nubrqQ@mail.gmail.com><CAD5OKxsKTHCuBQdUnGQtGfF7NmZZExLe9Q9B9cNR=483neuHPQ@mail.gmail.com><CAOJ7v-1rzdmviAnGknVZmrU_TDNoC3NmWd1g6iyx0WzZ4xB3Pw@mail.gmail.com><4E820825.9090101@skype.net> <CAD5OKxvmKi3Py0gNcTdREdfS07hA-=f6L+u8KKVgSWztMft9kQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2011 18:55:16.0549 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEF40750:01CC7D46]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls
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: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:52:32 -0000

Hi Roman,

 

RTCWeb application within Enterprise looks the reasonable argument for
not mandating ICE & SRTP in RTCWeb browser  because Enterprise shall be
visualized as single reachable private network with no NAT & SRTP
requirement. ICE & SRTP are overhead within Enterprise.

 

In case I understand you correctly, RTCWeb API should provide the
mechanism to include ICE & SRTP on the need basis.

 

Thanks

Partha

 

 

 

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Roman Shpount
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:08 AM
To: Matthew Kaufman
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

 

What about intranet applications that would want to locally call
existing IP phones within the same enterprise? Should we force them to
go through a media gateway as well or should we allow to overwrite this
using a policy?

As far as SRTP is concerned, once again we should at least provide a
local policy. Otherwise it would be a real problem to test and debug
this.
_____________
Roman Shpount



On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman
<matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

On 9/27/11 10:01 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:

Neither Google Voice nor Skype (both fairly popular services) send raw
RTP directly from the client to a PSTN terminator. 

 

True.

	 

	I can't speak for Skype, but Google Voice uses a media gateway
for the quality-related reasons I mentioned earlier.

 

I can't speak for Skype either, but this is a good guess.

	 

	
	Since these large-scale services can deploy media gateways, it's
clear that this is not a significant impediment.

 

Agree. I'm not at all sure what the argument is that we need
existing-PSTN-gateway-compatible RTP (without SRTP or ICE). If there is
demand, these gateways will be upgraded to support RTCWeb. If there is
not, service providers can run intermediate gateways.

Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email