[RTW] [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00

Wed Dec 22 17:15:18 CET 2010

Ingemar,

RFC 3711 defines AES as the default encryption algorithm and HMAC-SHA1 as
the default authentication algorithm for SRTP. As a result, those algorithms
are used by pretty much every application that uses SRTP, which makes
interoperability much easier.

I think a similar statement can be made regarding the selection of MTI video
codecs. There are various reasons why one might choose one codec versus
another. But if we are unable to pick at least one default/MTI codec (for
each media type), interoperability and thereby adoption of this platform
will be much more challenging.

--justin

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Ingemar Johansson S <
ingemar.s.johansson at ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Not meaning to express any preference in any direction but more a question
> to the more experiened IETFers.
>
> My impression here is that algorithms devised outside the IETF are rarely
> mandated in IETF frameworks.
>
> Two examples that I can come up with are
>
> SRTP (RFC3711): Only specifies the framework for secure RTP but does not
> mandate any encryption/authentication algorithms. Not sure if excryption
> algos are specified in separate RFC's
>
> FECFRAME (RFC6015): Specifies the framework for generic FEC, generic enough
> to plug in any FEC algo, the actual FEC algos are specified in separate
> drafs (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/fecframe/)
> Perhaps there are similar examples in other IETF areas that can serve as
> guidance ?, you may want to ping the eriIetf list on this (I leave it up to
> you)
>
> So to me it seems like there is preference to _not_ mandate algorithms
> (compression, fec, encryption) in IETF frameworks (I can imagine one
> specific reason to this). And... as I believe that RTC-Web will be some kind
> of framework I would say that this would apply here as well ?.
>
> Please feel free to bash my conclusion.
>
> /Ingemar
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:38:42 +0000
> From: <Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com>
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification   for
>        draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
> To: <peter.musgrave at magorcorp.com>, <harald at alvestrand.no>
> Cc: rtc-web at alvestrand.no, dispatch at ietf.org, ted.ietf at gmail.com
> Message-ID:
>        <
> DD8B10B86502AB488CB2D3DB4C546E3806DA99 at 008-AM1MPN1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Peter, all,
>
> About the video codec: Are there any arguments on why VP8 would not have
> IPR issues? It is available as an open source implementation, but that does
> not mean there are no IPR against it. My understanding is that the IPR
> situation wrt. VP8 is still unclear and thus risky. The other issue with VP8
> is, as far as I know, the lack of a clear spec out of which independent
> interoperable implementations can be created.
>
> So I don't at least buy the argument that we should choose VP8 as mandatory
> to implement video codec because of IPR reasons.
>
> I'm working on a separate review on Harald's drafts (thanks for putting
> them together) and will come back to the codec issue there in more detail,
> but just wanted to respond to Peter's point here.
>
> Regards,
>                Markus
>
> From: dispatch-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of ext Peter Musgrave
> Sent: 17 December, 2010 13:48
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org; Ted Hardie
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
>
> I'd also like to echo Alan's thanks for these drafts.
>
> The protocol doc is very clear. [If you read only one dispatch draft this
> Christmas, make it this one. ;-)  ]
>
> One observation to the group. The mandatory to implement video CODEC is VP8
> (presumably since it does not have IPR issues - which some other choices
> would have).
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Musgrave
>
>
> Nits
> Introduction
> s/veichle/vehicle/
>
> Section 2 Para "Within each.."
> s/implementaiton/implementation/
>
> Section 4 Para1
> "such as" (something missing here?)
>
> Section 5 Para2
> "There is no third mandatory to implement"
> ? Was there a mention of a third before. Not sure why this statement is
> there.
>
>
> On 2010-11-10, at 6:34 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> This is the overview document for the IETF-related RTC-WEB work.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:
>
> New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00
>
> Date:
>
> Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:31:05 -0800 (PST)
>
> From:
>
> IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission at ietf.org><mailto:
> idsubmission at ietf.org>
>
> To:
>
> harald at alvestrand.no<mailto:harald at alvestrand.no>
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00.txt has
> been successfully submitted by Harald Alvestrand and posted to the IETF
> repository.
>
>
>
> Filename:      draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols
>
> Revision:      00
>
> Title:         Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-based Applications
>
> Creation_date:  2010-11-11
>
> WG ID:         Independent Submission
>
> Number_of_pages: 9
>
>
>
> Abstract:
>
> This document gives an overview of a protocol suite intended for use
>
> with real-time applications that can be deployed in browsers - "real
>
> time communication on the Web".
>
>
>
> It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sure
>
> all the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, and
>
> that the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fully
>
> specified and on the right publication track.
>
>
>
> This work is an attempt to synthesize the input of many people, but
>
> makes no claims to fully represent the views of any of them.  All
>
> parts of the document should be regarded as open for discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch at ietf.org<mailto:dispatch at ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/attachments/20101221/46ec4317/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20101222/66fd8560/attachment.html>