IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Wed, 05 October 2011 03:17 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.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 0B0BD21F8BB0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 4F9RkM3ubnsJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872F421F8BAC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-165.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.165] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1RBI2V-0004Q3-7v for rtcweb@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:20:59 -0500
Message-ID: <4E8BCC2B.6080907@jesup.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:16:59 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com> <4E8B20BA.3080906@jesup.org> <7EE6A3A6-D628-4EF5-A1E2-FB78C9F8A498@acmepacket.com> <4E8BC675.6060907@skype.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E8BC675.6060907@skype.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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 03:17:54 -0000

On 10/4/2011 10:52 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> 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".


Right; pretty much the "Installed WebApp" model.

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

I'll agree with this approach.

(Just to verify: which of many possible places are you referring to it 
being discussed?)

-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email