IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft (privacy)

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Mon, 30 April 2012 09:12 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 2902621F8606 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 0pl4hcQLtqQB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys010aog111.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog111.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D6B21F8526 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from USMA-EX-HUB2.sonusnet.com ([69.147.176.212]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob111.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT55XYhJabcbhGf1rg6YbxMMFR5il7Fr+@postini.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:12:03 PDT
Received: from INBA-HUB02.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.87) by USMA-EX-HUB2.sonusnet.com (66.203.90.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:12:06 -0400
Received: from INBA-MAIL01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by inba-hub02.sonusnet.com ([fe80::80b9:dc60:caf7:7dfc%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:41:58 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: "Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)" <lists@infosecurity.ch>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Use Case draft (privacy)
Thread-Index: AQHNJrBLJ7F0zFZTHE2C5/c491YXXJazFHJQ
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:11:57 +0000
Message-ID: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23B18E@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <CA+9kkMCYArLPRP3c00UdOja64WRT6ghN0PSy7XvM_wbxBBB+vA@mail.gmail.com> <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD810616F066@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com> <4F9E55A1.9020104@infosecurity.ch>
In-Reply-To: <4F9E55A1.9020104@infosecurity.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.70.54.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft (privacy)
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, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:04 -0000

Fabio,

Please note that gateway shall acts as web-browser and compliance to RTCWeb specifications. Here, WebRTC session is between general-purpose web-browser like IE, Chrome in the customer side and customized web-browser in the site side. 

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 2:35 PM
>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft (privacy)
>
>On 4/27/12 6:35 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
>> I would like to see a corporate call center use case.  Specifically, a
>> user downloads a web page from a corporate web site, clicks a 'call
>us'
>> button and is connected to a gateway server that is controlled by the
>> corporation.  The communication up to the corporate boundary cannot be
>> eavesdropped, but, inside the corporate boundary:  1) the corporation
>> can route the call to whoever it wants (meaning that the caller can
>> verify that he is connected to the corporation, but is not necessarily
>> assured of the identity of the person he is speaking to within the
>> corporation) 2) the corporation can eavesdrop/record the call (n.b.
>> this is mandatory in financial institutions, and common in most
>others).
>
>In that case, from a privacy perspective, it's HIGHLY RELEVANT to show
>in the UI to the user that the call does it's encrypted up to a gateway
>and not up to another peer.
>
>Please get back the thread on end-to-end vs end-to-site security.
>
>The user *must known and be aware* if a call is secured between two
>peers or if it's not secured up to a gateway (and who control such a
>gateway).
>
>Fabio
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email