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

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Wed, 21 September 2011 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
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 183B311E811B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.409
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KinuiSQlbbkh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFCD11E810B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so2388190wyg.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.4.75 with SMTP id 11mr203483wbq.80.1316632487669; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local (shm67-5-88-165-90-188.fbx.proxad.net. [88.165.90.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fa7sm8034613wbb.26.2011.09.21.12.14.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E7A37A6.8020701@jitsi.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:14:46 +0200
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; bg; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
References: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com> <4E788E00.9020909@ericsson.com>, <4E78A467.7040409@jitsi.org>, <4E7994D7.60102@ericsson.com> <BLU152-W7703BEF679E9364856FB6930D0@phx.gbl>, <4E7A31BE.4050500@jitsi.org> <BLU152-W565B6BBA0EC6CC726E7CAA930D0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W565B6BBA0EC6CC726E7CAA930D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 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?

Emil

-- 
http://jitsi.org