Re: [rtcweb] Usecases for innovation.

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Thu, 03 November 2011 12:52 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 0325C11E8105 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 05:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, 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 YqSa5p8qex7u for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 05:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB5D11E80FC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 05:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-135-74.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.135.74] 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 1RLwmX-00010Q-5R for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:52:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4EB28E7B.7020004@jesup.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:52:11 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <084BA945-E5AB-480D-8608-1340E8C8125F@phonefromhere.com> <CALiegfkrPeBRG=URtM7=xmVHgHrQkhf9bGBL1JUE2h9ofbj=OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAJUQMjqxfLmOogr1hrSceOba=nrMpfXQ+4yn_yH=+tOxmcZKw@mail.gmail.com> <4EB1840D.6070405@jesup.org> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6CD0F1@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <CAAJUQMjNKpkr9OQK4ow=8CFETo8ezg=nKdG9WxL1fUJr=3=wpw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAJUQMjNKpkr9OQK4ow=8CFETo8ezg=nKdG9WxL1fUJr=3=wpw@mail.gmail.com>
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] Usecases for innovation.
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: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:52:36 -0000

On 11/3/2011 4:18 AM, Wolfgang Beck wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi
>> Thanks to Randell for sharing his experience and burning issue in WebRTC. I understand that security&  privacy should
>> be the main focus of this WG.
> We have less security issues if both parties are using the same
> server. With trapezoid style interconnection/federation security
> relevant information can get lost. You can get into transit scenarios
> where all your signaling is routed through providers that you don't
> know. If Facebook or Google became big hubs to interconnect small
> RTCWEB providers, how would they use this signaling information?

The security and privacy issues I was referring to were mostly regarding 
the user interface and evil JS apps, not trapezoid security "plumbing" 
issues.


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org