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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 20 October 2011 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 8B14221F8B4C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 cREuYqfczQ4L for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF4221F8B1A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so2526812vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.73.166 with SMTP id m6mr11000178vdv.18.1319122544526; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxuVkSojDRAPPzsWbL6wj-72VphoQOk8XG4MLh9V0MzZ6Q@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> <CALiegfkKhWwr4yY2vV-x2+01dys57_sYsSsoof=kEu5G3CL5oA@mail.gmail.com> <6DFC5313-2991-4FB5-811D-FC99D31F9298@edvina.net> <CAD5OKxuVkSojDRAPPzsWbL6wj-72VphoQOk8XG4MLh9V0MzZ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:55:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmgA=AwbpGz4LtZ86BGxUY+q03+z8dB4hS644Ndik=3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 14:55:45 -0000

2011/10/20 Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>;:
> I am not sure that he actually meant media over websocket, but single origin
> application and media (RTP media sent to the same IP as web app), might
> warrant relaxed security requirements. In particular, if RTC client is
> sending media to the same IP as a web server providing JavaScript, it can
> probably do so without ICE connectivity check without introducing any
> security issues. I am not sure how big of the use case this is going to be,
> but this can be attractive in some cases (use IP load balancer to send HTTP
> requests to one server and RTP port range to a gateway or SBC).

Yes, that's the WWW vision for any problem to solve:

HTTP/WebSocket protocol for all, port 80 and IP load balancers. There
si no more in WWW minds.

We can do it much better.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;