Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion

Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Wed, 05 October 2011 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.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 8436221F8CBD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.843, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 uElTMisVgzjn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (mx.skype.net [78.141.177.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B027521F8C10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0472416F6; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:53:53 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=skype.net; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mx; bh=4pFjXLyY6vQ37G tWc5eiNl4iNu0=; b=T8XuCVcQV3XxdEmGtnKukbNDCe3b2okajvBTUk6qP7M9b6 j0qMI5z2lYtkH3ZafNiKLVzzLGlR/lLHQy7A2kFKkGi3f+hbFt48cPH9NzqbE/GT hS8KPoqpm+cev8Jl1RfqxwQnQssTQajU26zec/0ija9CceeTOHRvIX0gWaGzY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=skype.net; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mx; b=xPkb7iCyJl4DNa7f6ueEvy cV8Lx7YwLcge/JWvjViEbvnIz3qlDzyx8jEV5PZo7M6WmsKI/nT/U+4visBcqSEM BYsbLC/SKTA6XS9snH5VP05vJqVZk+1ZoEkWDPSmZF8MJ0abzvy8vhQZ6tLRrLB/ Axnn2z6nTh/n9QVPoPJys=
Received: from zimbra.skype.net (zimbra.skype.net [78.141.177.82]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D807F6; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:53:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C843506F2C; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:53:52 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lu2-zimbra.skype.net
Received: from zimbra.skype.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.skype.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zT1jItY6-e5k; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:53:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [198.202.199.254]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 483FA3506E4D; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:53:51 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E8BC675.6060907@skype.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:52:37 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
References: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com> <4E8B20BA.3080906@jesup.org> <7EE6A3A6-D628-4EF5-A1E2-FB78C9F8A498@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <7EE6A3A6-D628-4EF5-A1E2-FB78C9F8A498@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion
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, 05 Oct 2011 02:51:16 -0000

On 10/4/2011 9:24 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>   requiring a more stringent JS trust model seems worthwhile to me.
>

Great idea. Already being discussed elsewhere. Out of scope for both of 
these groups except to note that *if* someone solves the JS trust issue, 
we might be able to relax the ICE requirement when running applications 
that are "trusted".

I wouldn't be adverse to even saying just that in the requirements 
document that explains why ICE is needed.

Matthew Kaufman