Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 26 September 2011 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 4ED3721F8D1A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.639
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 G5yQYeoIXScm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2EC421F8D15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so4038716vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.9.129 with SMTP id l1mr1889823vcl.87.1317050137255; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.94.200 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:15:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmO54HC+g9L_DYn4jtXAAbLEvS++qxKa6TNrLDREs9SeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, 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: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:12:55 -0000

2011/9/26 Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>om>:
> Maybe I misundersatnd you, but the PSTN carriers today and in the future
> will always run an SBC because that is their security policy.

Hi. Please let's forget "SBC" and let's go to a simpler case: a PSTN
provider that speeak SIP and RTP with clients and SIP/SS7/ISUP with
other PSTN operators. The signaling and media conversion is done in
PSTN gateways. Most of them, for sure, don't implement ICE neither
SRTP.

Anyhow, concerning this subject, I already proposed something in other
thread: why couldn't the provider (the web site) tell their WebRTC
clients wheter they shoud or not accept media sessions without ICE
and/or SRTP?

For example, a telco operator that creates a web site for allow its
clients making PSTN calls from the web, could relax those requirements
and don't mandate ICE/SRTP. In the other side, a social network web
site which just allows calls between web users could mandate them.
Such configuration could be retrieved by the WebRTC client via HTTP or
WebSocket by standarizing a document format.

Regards.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>