Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 15 November 2011 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.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 0F59E11E80B2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:05:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.639
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 6ggMUoGopeQr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F329311E80AB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:05:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vcbfl15 with SMTP id fl15so1108963vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:05:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.1.14 with SMTP id 14mr480148vcd.78.1321394732115; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:05:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:05:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBM3bY041sMiaDmxuk=BvuZvoEGquV7jyG1OEQ9mGCnBWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <8A61D801-D14D-408B-9875-63C37D0CC166@acmepacket.com> <CABw3bnPE=OY_h5bM7GA6wgrXiOBL8P4J0kw1jLv-GSpHAbg=Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNqdkh8u=gwOvKfDCQA7rXdAyQkfaM1r2Sx10787btP6A@mail.gmail.com> <B10FEFF6-0ADC-4DB1-83BB-50A11C65EC35@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBNSXtim_VqzqAd8Z-u4zWSjaYmsVZPN=7sDYkJsgtRAHA@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7E6A5.70209@alvestrand.no> <F8003BA9-BCD8-4F02-B514-8B883FF90F91@acmepacket.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349D81@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <845C03B2-1975-4145-8F52-8CEC9E360AF3@edvina.net> <5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B7FD@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A105@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804691DA2@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <CALiegfmf59jb4asUu9LA6YY_aMtKEnM1Wy34KbuLEn3_h1xBXA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmM1PB=VAQjfh4rW3-3C8aumHdWy9nZxD0-BWBq9Kq_tg@mail.gmail.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3BA57@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <CALiegfkWnRT8m4S9pXTxuLsc-p_bhkG3d=PX3qgiFFt5gW5yfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvQYVKOZF88WLCiRseg-qXQdOpKeDU_t9b-yA2GcDBT-w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOiPxz_swdaG6Aqoch1WAUtjNh4eOQy1QObCDXT_B8azg@mail.gmail.com> <228696DD-CAF5-4D50-AA5A-11F62DFD01EE@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBM3bY041sMiaDmxuk=BvuZvoEGquV7jyG1OEQ9mGCnBWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:05:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegf=CnWHe47t7WwDnfq54DUgdZGzFAgdnipUZ1p-vd1M4xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:05:34 -0000

2011/11/10 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>om>:
> we have a whole array of protocols which really should
> be secure all the time (e-mail is a good example) but aren't because they
> were initially deployed insecure and it's hard to convert. The good
> news, however,
> is that WebRTC can be done securely from the beginning in a way that
> (unlike HTTPS) doesn't impose significant inconvenience on the site operator.

+1

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>