Re: [rtcweb] Isolating data channels (Re: Asking TLS for help with media isolation)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 07 April 2014 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECA31A047A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dlrIQZsavxIs for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886C21A027A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3B57C50FA; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:20:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v1HAcb3U2huY; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:20:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:7646:a0ff:fe90:e2bb]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B80AF7C50F2; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:20:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5342DE6F.6040306@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:20:47 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWWuU63Vd=gw+wrh2ADgVYtQzhoRzRE1sv5azJE=MhWDg@mail.gmail.com> <533F191D.8050109@alum.mit.edu> <CABkgnnVht5EmJ7a2LDh50ivjUdoTpJ8GannQKReBSJbVGQGmgA@mail.gmail.com> <53425BAF.4070105@alvestrand.no> <CABkgnnXKe65-30qkuhkCLmaUYVfe8vrWv9BCJzOvC7KaRwUH=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXKe65-30qkuhkCLmaUYVfe8vrWv9BCJzOvC7KaRwUH=g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/KTAwNhbCqUgSdikqVmdh45TSXzA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Isolating data channels (Re: Asking TLS for help with media isolation)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:21:00 -0000

On 04/07/2014 07:01 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> The subject is largely speculative, but when it comes to solutions,
> the problem will not be a lack of options, but an inability to choose
> a "right" one.
>
> On 7 April 2014 01:02, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> Wild suggestion: if you want per-track isolation properties, open up a data
>> channel with a protocol called '*WebRTCIsolationInfo' and use it to send
>> information about the isolation status of each track, thereby also providing
>> a working example for the rule 'all data channels that have protocols
>> starting with "*" are for browser internal usage'.....
> I assume that you are talking PPID here.  Given that it's off limits
> for JavaScript currently, then it does provide an opportunity for this
> communication.  The problem there is that you need to spin up data
> channels, even if the application has no need of them.  That's a
> fairly high cost.
I was actually thinking "protocol" as in the string that goes into the 
datachannel setup packets. PPIDs would work too for separating 
browser-to-brower from app-to-app, but I wasn't thinking of them.

Yes, data channels do cost something to set up. But we're already paying 
the DTLS tax in order to set up the keying, so it's "just" another 
request/response. How many extra round trips does the SCTP setup add?

(Would need the response in order to make sure the respondent gave the 
promise to obey isolation, I think.)

(and to Matthew: At least we wouldn't have *yet* another congestion 
context to manage, which would be the case with a separate TCP 
connection. There are always tradeoffs.)