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

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 21 September 2011 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 58E1D1F0C64 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fqsg2x-1encD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s35.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s35.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CEB1F0C52 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU152-W56 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s35.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:01:53 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU152-W565B6BBA0EC6CC726E7CAA930D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_e8d63647-3105-4bc1-8597-0dbe8917627d_"
X-Originating-IP: [98.203.198.61]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:01:53 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <4E7A31BE.4050500@jitsi.org>
References: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com> <4E788E00.9020909@ericsson.com>, <4E78A467.7040409@jitsi.org>, <4E7994D7.60102@ericsson.com> <BLU152-W7703BEF679E9364856FB6930D0@phx.gbl>, <4E7A31BE.4050500@jitsi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2011 19:01:53.0774 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED3D40E0:01CC7890]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
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: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:59:25 -0000

> Why would the schedule slip? If this is an optional extension, as
> everyone agrees it should be, how could it delay the main specs and
> implementations? Even if there are indeed some unforeseen grave security
> issues (which I am not all that sure about), then it they would only
> delay release of this extension, wouldn't they?

[BA] Even if scenario B is optional, we will still need to do the work to analyze the security implications
and integrate it within the overall architecture.   Unless all work on scenario B were to be separated
out into a separate series of work items with no impact on existing ones (which I believe would require
a charter change), adding scenario B would potentially affect other more basic deliverables.