Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Mon, 19 September 2011 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 7D82021F8B2E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 f6WQ-gbWErkO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C5121F8AF7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-165.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.165] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1R5Yqg-0003Zz-EB for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:05:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4E76F6E9.4010404@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:01:45 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing
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, 19 Sep 2011 08:02:44 -0000

On 9/19/2011 3:02 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>
> A) Where the RTCWEB enabled browser can use a local application window,
> the whole desktop or a Screen as a media source that can be encoded and
> transported over the peerConnection for displaying/playback at the peer.
>
> B) Where a remote peer can provide one or more input types such as mouse
> and keyboard to control the local system, not only including the
> browser, but also other operating system resources. This clearly can
> only happen after additional consent, most likely on a per occasion
> consent.
>
> My interpretation is that A only allows for application sharing in
> conferencing contexts, like in the WEBEX session the Interim meeting was
> held with where we shared slides. Where the combination of A and B is
> providing for VNC/Remote desktop.
>
> Thus the question to the WG is the following.
>
> 1) Do you support or object the inclusion of use case A, B or Both in
> our Use case document?

Both.

>
> 2) Do you have additional comments for or against either of the use cases?
>
IMHO: Both use-cases involve extra-fun security issues, but both are actually
pretty compelling and useful cases to users.  Everyone I mentioned them to
at the Mozilla All-Hands event "got" the wish for these use-cases pretty
immediately.

VNC-like transfer of screen data is a particularly tough one for the current
permission and access model to enable, but that may change.  A lot of this is
likely to be tied-to or echo the security model and concerns for HTML5 "installed
webapps".


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org