Re: [rtcweb] New use-case proposed

Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com> Fri, 11 May 2012 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.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 B336321F86EE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 37agggA1Rn-E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA5F21F86CB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7c05ae000003df9-db-4fad852ddf48
Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B9.B6.15865.D258DAF4; Fri, 11 May 2012 23:31:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.194]) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.53]) with mapi; Fri, 11 May 2012 23:31:25 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?R8O2cmFuIEVyaWtzc29uIEFQ?= <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:31:22 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] New use-case proposed
Thread-Index: Ac0vvWr2RMlfyETUSsq4H1UYYNfseQ==
Message-ID: <16EBFBCB-20CB-4E2D-9ECD-575CB9DD2A79@ericsson.com>
References: <4FAD0D8C.7020701@ericsson.com> <4FAD3C87.8080908@alvestrand.no> <27AFC26D-064F-4B33-92B3-2889170A88C1@ericsson.com> <4FAD7BFE.10905@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4FAD7BFE.10905@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: sv-SE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New use-case proposed
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: Fri, 11 May 2012 21:31:27 -0000


11 maj 2012 kl. 22:52 skrev "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>no>:

> On 05/11/2012 06:38 PM, Göran Eriksson AP wrote:
>> 
>> 11 maj 2012 kl. 18:21 skrev "Harald Alvestrand"<harald@alvestrand.no>rand.no>:
>> 
>>> I propose to reject this use case because it requires yet another
>>> security redesign.
>>> The clue is here:
>>> 
>>>> - The keying solution must allow each participants to encrypt to
>>>> multiple receivers without any decryption+encryption in the middle node
>>>> 
>>> This means that each participant must use the same encryption keys to
>>> all other participants; this in turn means that when someone leaves the
>>> group, all participants must change their encryption keys; it also means
>>> that as long as shared keys are used for authentication, all
>>> participants can impersonate all other participants.
>>> 
>>> In fact, this solution has most of the issues (except for the network
>>> layer deployment issue) that leads me to strongly advocate leaving
>>> multicast out of scope for this effort.
>> You mean for this phase of webrtc std efforts or for ever?
> Until we've got an usage scenario with a deployment story that I find 
> credible.
> 
> The point I'm pretty vehement on - that lack of multicast support should 
> not be a blocker for finalizing the specs we are working on.
> 

I am pretty sensitive to such consequence as well! Having said that, enabling innovation in this kind of application category is important  for the long term evolution of the web platform.

Personally, I would like to us to ensure we have at least have a good foundation for multicast later.



>               Harald
>