Re: [rtcweb] CNAMEs and multiple peer connections

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 14 March 2014 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6611A0176 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v6DxXjkRdrYr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA931A0170 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id n15so2910145wiw.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UMnE+Nek5Cv+a3qvBPx+UOBVSOydRBveMRzP+u5ARws=; b=FJfWGdwBXoLv9AbysNIV6mke48O1WIWBEDtCRzH9dsRnwkR+ZHxm3UZsLbqZDGEevP S09Ko82AuJGlFVfGhKYrXBd7nKBxLbre95gWtapGAFhXbdeguKYkos7dkfkUw098Z5ZD tAfs/7ZOAG0AR2fdmVMotGrEnchuR/grb/xSA5zDTr2nSHED5lR1DCFjx/XFZk2fg0EN 37u7hJaf1TWZkgPhDusyP2yZwyTxYhY42vGjg8X2v8RJVhu6FlrJuVQsYqBvTEXjMjzZ yYOVooFAInAJ4xoQhnYxGJT9ySkMDRCM38xh1pUgaqUgWg1sGN3dhfJoP8WOjTtEs9qF syvg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.185.197 with SMTP id fe5mr7088348wic.56.1394817393520; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.10.196 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3NFiR4yXRoscWQ5Oh7ohiM+fD=YJBp2Q-rdA_Azu9gZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWGQ7GtKd33iF-RNbkeAyqKYshaPDDB=sAh5o-izKichQ@mail.gmail.com> <53171C20.3020001@ericsson.com> <CABkgnnWWoCLKga7RDEmS1kDOuBPaiKaJ+_yj6-yPRSV8LVc=2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1J=F-MNnBS96gt3_BXyoQB6jTCoHp0MTEBC-nWrF-BhA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWQbtKYTuvUyMiCaEijv3KVydR8sxGXZep08B4EQXArxA@mail.gmail.com> <531DD807.9090602@ericsson.com> <CABkgnnVscHB6_weLkxHunQxLue7g-WvBwO-P_CW6eEU_JYqVuw@mail.gmail.com> <53201AEF.6090501@ericsson.com> <CABkgnnX16mOUOCmQ3wgQ2AV8o5WNXpCjVi-Rhr+ASWQ2LPzA-w@mail.gmail.com> <5322BF2E.3060608@ericsson.com> <CAOJ7v-3NFiR4yXRoscWQ5Oh7ohiM+fD=YJBp2Q-rdA_Azu9gZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:16:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUWaPufn7cG7mj_j2ogtHYrTbxCVfLFQmwQm7HpEja6-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/DyVg7Gc9p5bm_I91-dQBOQM8cMg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] CNAMEs and multiple peer connections
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:16:42 -0000

On 14 March 2014 09:44, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> While we seem to agree that a) is the right solution for CNAMEs, it is worth
> pointing out that we (Chrome) are currently doing c) for DTLS certificates,
> to avoid performance problems with cert generation at page load.

Firefox does 1-per PC.  There are plans to allow more granular control
over this (following ekr's proposal), but that's currently low
priority.  There are plenty of other places where we can make
performance improvements.