Re: [rtcweb] A plea for simplicity, marketability - and... who are we designing RTCWEB for?

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 20 October 2011 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 8662021F8B8D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.868
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 K050um3CbafD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AEB321F8B86 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxj19 with SMTP id 19so3532302yxj.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.43.49.131 with SMTP id va3mr19150505icb.51.1319125553467; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f50.google.com (mail-pz0-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l28sm24664887ibc.3.2011.10.20.08.45.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk34 with SMTP id 34so7630322pzk.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.17.225 with SMTP id r1mr21207888pbd.64.1319125550186; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.47.40 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNbSk-4kfzNtXUSnFMhkcockTXudAYzEET30a0v+-kxBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9C8CA816-65FB-41A0-999C-4C43128CAAB4@danyork.org> <BLU152-W43CB8DACCEA54AA5558B2493EA0@phx.gbl> <E857C96A-0E73-486F-BF23-36BA897B449C@cisco.com> <BLU152-W19B31DA6C6DB2FE60FC51C93EB0@phx.gbl> <CABcZeBNbSk-4kfzNtXUSnFMhkcockTXudAYzEET30a0v+-kxBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:45:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtLZvEc6DyVqJmf8dMvao2=EJdSUBdRBpu-_BViFKwBFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520ea85d5432104afbcd9f8
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A plea for simplicity, marketability - and... who are we designing RTCWEB for?
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:45:54 -0000

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:

> I don't think I'm following you're argument. ISTM that there are two
> conditions that one might term "single origin":
>

There is a third condition for the term "single origin": an RTC application
calling a server which provided the JavaScript with RTC application. For
instance if you have an application from a phone service provider or
conferencing app. This application will never setup a P2P call between two
browsers, it is always between provider and the browser, so it can ask for
relaxed security since it only calls its own IP.
_____________
Roman Shpount