Re: [rtcweb] Regarding the use-case document

["Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <[e-mail]>]

Stefan,


1) I have mentioned in Call Center [2] usecase calls for "Anonymous" identity for agents (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04295.html) and also Andrew Hutton mentioned the same in the another mail (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04221.html)

2) Also in another mail thread, "Anonymous" identity for customer is discussed  as part of http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04254.html

In case any more information required for clarity, please let me know. Also, I'm fine with discussion about these usecase in interim meeting.  

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of Stefan Hakansson LK
>Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:24 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: [rtcweb] Regarding the use-case document
>
>The rtcweb chairs asked for input on the use-case document on April 27th
>[1].
>
>Browsing the emails that followed, I note:
>
>1. Proposal for a call center use case (made by Jim Barnett) [2]
>
>2. Proposal to add peer-to-peer file sharing to the simple video comm
>service (made by Tim Terriberri) [3]
>
>3. Comments related to security, SRTP and key exchange, F20 (by Dan
>Wing) [4]
>
>4. Request for clarifying "eavesdropping", Andrew Hutton [5]
>
>5. Enterprise policies use-cases proposed, Roman Shpount [6]
>
>6. Multiparty with low complex central node, Stefan Håkansson [7]
>
>7. Multiparty with central node that can not decipher media Oscar
>Ohlsson [8]
>
>8. Four new reqs proposed (to be mapped to either new or existing use-
>cases), one additional use-case proposed, by Cullen Jennings [9]. Reqs:
>8a. Req: When A calls B, B does not reveal their IP address to A 8b.
>Req: B can tell that the encrypted media is from A and not from a MITM
>8c. Req: Be able to switch off Voice activity detection (if present) 8d.
>Req: Be able to prioritize between streams New use-case: "Collaboration
>between companies with node [in media path] that does/can not decipher
>media"
>
>9. Proposal from Magnus Westerlund to clarify the language a bit [10]
>regarding 4. in this list
>
>Is anything important missing from the list above?
>
>Going through this list (and the discussion that followed on each item)
>it seems quite clear that:
>
>A. The language should be clarified (as Magnus proposed [10]), e.g. to
>clarify that also the data channel should be encrypted (this relates to
>3. and 9. in the previous list)
>
>B. One more derivative of the "Simple Video Communication Service"
>use-case should be added to add peer-to-peer file sharing (this proposal
>got some support, no objection, and was also mentioned many times during
>the MV interim)
>
>C. There is no need to clarify "eavesdropping" (item 4. in the previous
>list); EKR proposed to do that as part of the security document instead
>
>D. For the new requirements proposed by Cullen (8a - d in the previous
>list), 8a and 8b can be incorporated in existing use cases, 8c is
>already covered in the "Distributed Music Band" use-case, 8d can be
>added to the "Hockey Game Viewer" use case. Regarding 8d it can be noted
>that there is already a requirement on "being able to use priority
>functions in network nodes" (F24); 8d would be different and relate more
>to how the browser reduces send rate for different flows as a response
>to e.g. network congestion. The reqs seem  uncontroversial to me.
>
>Unless there are objections to this, the editors plan to update the
>document according to A - D above.
>
>
>
>It is less clear on what to do regarding the call-center use
>case [2], the enterprise policies use-cases [6] and the two use-cases
>where a central node (in the media path) must not be able to access
>deciphered media [8] and [9]; I think this should be discussed at the
>interim meeting.
>
>Comments?
>
>Stefan
>
>[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04202.html
>[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04203.html
>[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04204.html
>[4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04205.html
>[5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04241.html
>[6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04271.html
>[7] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04430.html
>[8] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04457.html
>[9] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04461.html
>[10] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04214.html
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb