Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Fri, 31 May 2013 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 D062721F9050 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.685
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
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 wgroZ1hvIkBh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F8F21F89EB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [10.10.155.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61D41480FA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51A9086D.6040608@matthew.at>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 13:30:37 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se> <CALiegfk6XchF4U1Orpd6oJsydz-VGtBQ=CwaWrPa_KjsaQynYQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A7CD81.2060805@gmail.com> <51A835D7.9060603@omnitor.se> <CALiegfm4R=3mGqTOxBfvCfnsRg=fe=XapA6s-QQNjrsAkg5HEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfm4R=3mGqTOxBfvCfnsRg=fe=XapA6s-QQNjrsAkg5HEA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
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: Fri, 31 May 2013 20:30:40 -0000

On 5/31/2013 5:35 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Facebook, Google+, Twitter and any other website use their own custom 
> mechanisms for providing chat capabilities to *their own* users 
> *between them*. I don't expect that they will be interested in a 
> peer-to-peer (user-to-user) realtime text because they want to log the 
> messages, inspect them, offer you advertisements based on the content 
> of your "private" chats, etc. 

Yes, among other things, text messaging has a completely different set 
of legal requirements (both for public service providers as well as 
within regulated industries such as securities trading) than voice 
communication in many countries, including the US. If real-time-text 
falls into those requirements, it will need to conform to those 
requirements... never mind the things like blocking URLs that point to 
virus downloads.

Matthew Kaufman