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

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 21 September 2011 16:01 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 5B24D1F0CAD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.363
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.235, 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 3tVKLgu+ainC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s9.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s9.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE4A1F0CA9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU152-W7 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s9.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:03:44 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU152-W7703BEF679E9364856FB6930D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_40d3c9b8-6b22-449c-9575-5354d683ec60_"
X-Originating-IP: [98.203.198.61]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:03:44 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <4E7994D7.60102@ericsson.com>
References: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com> <4E788E00.9020909@ericsson.com>, <4E78A467.7040409@jitsi.org>, <4E7994D7.60102@ericsson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2011 16:03:44.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A0BB5D0:01CC7878]
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 16:01:16 -0000

Stefan said: 

> Anyway, I seem to be rather lonely in my corner of the room, but I 
> maintain my opinion that we should defer this to a later stage.

[BA]  You are not lonely (at least with respect to deferring discussion of scenario B). 

I believe that we can include scenario A within the use case document
and security document, and see how much this affects the requirements and
security issues (I expect not too much). 

However, I am in favor of deferring scenario B rather than adding it.  This
scenario has potentially major security implications, which could slow progress
on other items.  To me, this is a good reason to defer it.  If we keep adding
major work items, the overall schedule will slip, and that is quite dangerous.