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