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

Emil Ivov <> Wed, 21 September 2011 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183B311E811B for <>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.409
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KinuiSQlbbkh for <>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFCD11E810B for <>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so2388190wyg.31 for <>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 11mr203483wbq.80.1316632487669; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id fa7sm8034613wbb.26.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:14:46 +0200
From: Emil Ivov <>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; bg; rv: Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <>
References: <> <>, <>, <> <BLU152-W7703BEF679E9364856FB6930D0@phx.gbl>, <> <BLU152-W565B6BBA0EC6CC726E7CAA930D0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W565B6BBA0EC6CC726E7CAA930D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:12:20 -0000

На 21.09.11 21:01, Bernard Aboba написа:
>> Why would the schedule slip? If this is an optional extension, as
>> everyone agrees it should be, how could it delay the main specs and
>> implementations? Even if there are indeed some unforeseen grave security
>> issues (which I am not all that sure about), then it they would only
>> delay release of this extension, wouldn't they?
> [BA] Even if scenario B is optional, we will still need to do the work
> to analyze the security implications
> and integrate it within the overall architecture.   Unless all work on
> scenario B were to be separated
> out into a separate series of work items with no impact on existing ones
> (which I believe would require
> a charter change), adding scenario B would potentially affect other more
> basic deliverables.

Mmmm ... I am still not sure I am seeing it. I am probably missing
something though, so would you mind being a bit more specific? What
security issues do we expect that would be completely different from
what already needs to be handled with audio and video acquisition?