Re: [rtcweb] Asking TLS for help with media isolation

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Tue, 08 April 2014 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
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 17DF91A04B6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 kTrEI6XqYcaK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x233.google.com (mail-we0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977C51A050E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x48so1207401wes.24 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=I6wLJbbbEs7eZKu4xJz/Qx7h+QWswcQD79L78wHFRWw=; b=i1TcsRtwu3n8FShk7Fh83qWL6q/cwwi+7K8k7EELE8hIvkbShqbHnLl+LTONd9Zyz+ StFaYTuIGo/QHcrevdQk7lgXIfoQDmBkao3Jr1/qpVtaoq6WwE9CDkx/komWfixZmy2+ 4kJBVq89NRheZd9W8zEk5KTxN8B5Z0iXyroOFVGCFqEiRR+0N09QCSlyGhhv4XTQIgzG HHsEEGJ/LFWI8psrXO4rgLHICsdsbh7xpIeJjpSys9YoXbUgAQ/yHqkGa0LD17OCfc5D 0dOv55wJ+6J/gswO3toirSeaf/6ITf2GbL32TsCv8Gw4kVB26bhGXhXcoMulsyiIJdIr 7Qww==
X-Received: by 10.194.188.68 with SMTP id fy4mr4898164wjc.30.1396975875881; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.102.130 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D2B26CB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CABkgnnWWuU63Vd=gw+wrh2ADgVYtQzhoRzRE1sv5azJE=MhWDg@mail.gmail.com> <533F191D.8050109@alum.mit.edu> <CABkgnnVht5EmJ7a2LDh50ivjUdoTpJ8GannQKReBSJbVGQGmgA@mail.gmail.com> <53419ED4.8020102@alum.mit.edu> <CABkgnnVjZ51bt5WQ1uvHHUz-4xFzpXQGhuMqxeMpOqJ1d+hQiA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D2B26CB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:50:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dsZrgQrOwJDu+bFE0U-dSUj5D--s_Dx1Nu9Ac60yuYCrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb03f9ad780cf04f68aca01
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/irtigKLBS5ocvD_JyAb53j2QXmQ
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:51:36 -0000

Christer said:

"How would that work with an intermediary mixer, transcoder, etc."

[BA] I'm not sure that the concept of "isolation" makes sense for those
intermediaries (or to voicemail or an audio/video conference, for that
matter).   While in a point-to-point call it might be useful, in a
conference the whole point is to have audio/video sent to multiple parties,
and recording is commonplace.  The problem is that from a protocol point of
view the cases are not easily distinguishable -- and so if the browser
insists on "isolation" then one wonders what will happen if the conference
bridge/video MCU/voicemail system refuses to negotiate it.   Refusing to
send media would not be a desirable outcome.


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >> But ISTM there would need to be a different set of limitations for
> >> non-browsers. For instance, to not echo the stream back to the source.
> >> And not to store the stream in a place that the sender can retrieve.
> >
> >Yes.  At the most abstract level, the requirements are the same.
> >Don't pass the media on to someone else.
>
> How would that work with an intermediary mixer, transcoder, etc?
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>