- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:06:19 -0800
- To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-orca@w3c.org" <public-orca@w3c.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJrXDUE4yYowiWc3rXcwzB-19z=y9tiexyiQUayp7d5B77329Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Roman Shpount <rshpount@turbobridge.com > >wrote: > > >> a) Would this allow plain RTP and SCTP? If we can wire plain transports, > >> can we wire SCTP and RTP directly to ICE? > >> > > Peter Thatcher replied: > > >I think the answer to that is "no" for browsers. DTLS would still be > >required. Mobile apps and other endpoints could, of course, do whatever > >they want. > > [BA] I agree that the answer should be "no" for the ORTC API as > implemented in a browser. However, in a server scenario (e.g. node.js > modules used to build a WebRTC-legacy gateway) or in a mobile application > (e.g. "ortclib") it could be quite useful to be able to support > unencrypted RTP or SRTP/SDES key exchange, possibly without ICE. > > To avoid confusion between the ORTC browser API and future server/mobile > functionality, it is probably best to focus the current ORTC API spec and > examples purely on the browser case. However, server requirements and > functionality is something to keep in the back of our minds. > Roman said: > > > b) There is a current discussion going on about changing ICE consent with > > DTLS consent. How would this work in ORTC if DTLS is optional? > > Peter answered: > > > In general, ability to remove DTLS from the transport path would cause a > > substantial security debate. It might be better to have ICE/DTLS > transport > > and provide new replacement transports in the future when they are > > available and deemed secure. > > [BA] For browser uses, DTLS will always be required to protect SCTP as > well as for DTLS/SRTP key exchange. But in a server scenario, one might > want to enable an RTCRtpSender/Receiver object to have an rtpTransport > attribute that represented an alternative transport. > I agree with all of that: DTLS required for browsers, but an API flexible enough for new replacement transports in the future or different kinds of transports for native/mobile/server apps.
Received on Thursday, 26 December 2013 19:07:28 UTC