Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when traversing the network

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Fri, 07 March 2014 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.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 6E3901A0159 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:20:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 UKfhtRY1J651 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684EC1A0133 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 02:19:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 7073 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2014 10:19:52 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 3350
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 7 Mar 2014 10:19:52 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A9218A052D; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:19:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from limit.westhawk.co.uk (limit.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 949F818A047B; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:19:52 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUrCcDS4Ty+t2gAzXUXyZPuQeqK6nqG5b-egrBwYHr9BA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 10:19:51 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DB348EDA-A588-47B2-8FA5-988026831DAB@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CABkgnnVZpOJU=2ip88jF=sa2a7K=jBhZA0zkovPo_vvTBwA-GQ@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4844FABBEDF@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CABkgnnUrCcDS4Ty+t2gAzXUXyZPuQeqK6nqG5b-egrBwYHr9BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/tjD_3vtzB91ck_YjvGgHeuvgiSw
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when traversing the network
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: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 10:20:01 -0000

On 7 Mar 2014, at 09:21, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 March 2014 15:03, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
> <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:
>> Would be good to think about whether the default should be isolated (with a special way for sites to ask the browser to relax the restriction) or not isolated (with a way to ask for isolation). The traditional way for "the web" is to do the latter, but I think by now we've seen why we might have wished otherwise.
> 
> We've talked about this in the past.  There are two aspects that we've
> considered: whether to prompt for access to isolated streams (we
> decided that this could be considered creepy), and whether to default
> to isolation.  I don't think that we can realistically default to
> isolation at this point.

I'm skeptical about the usefulness of isolation. If I understand it correctly, it would disable the ability
of a user interface to do any webGL or webAudio processing on the audio or video signals.
Many of the use cases I see use these APIs to do things like add titlebars, mix audio streams play audio prompts etc,
isolation reduces webRTC to  door-intercom like functionality, whilst there are good usages of that, I suspect they are in the 
minority.

So I'd oppose any move to make streams isolated by default.

T.