Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when traversing the network
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 07 March 2014 09:19 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 BB8981A0253 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 01:19:27 -0800 (PST)
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 kom_mel3JCjc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 01:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FE51A0258 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 01:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id k14so4629265wgh.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 01:19:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=O8xU3nSUwREqiWvnaCvOJYbluyyHglp2sXDD4Q7EWAk=; b=WW2l0qC9FMK41hCWCkM+xAV+HqhScOdWxcjRvzEDs0IHlKuutMaByvCLK4RLZw8ZQX 4Z6hC6R8CGh7VIyrCugAvj1Aca87Jm7btaEQHB75YRrt0wJdo0kxN7aZ66Q3e0VZhzU5 Nch45XVHyGiJOLkiOka1T3yzhOMfqUu6OPNALmpxaBcoAYlEVq5eG+Sa8AprffQlUTS5 Iej6QCJgsoYIB4aFmv5CDMgnM9RGDNagLRpr/u4iuJsYMn1TJSBAsTEey9XS0KGtEUTd /BwPmmemEfQCC+1amlTKZYZXXywWDDhaMzuNbKc33eqQUGFlB1IUxhGHPt70dgvWtSmg ue5A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.110.41 with SMTP id hx9mr17468906wjb.28.1394183960440; Fri, 07 Mar 2014 01:19:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.10.196 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 01:19:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <53188835.4000806@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnVZpOJU=2ip88jF=sa2a7K=jBhZA0zkovPo_vvTBwA-GQ@mail.gmail.com> <53188835.4000806@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 09:19:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVuMEmUSQO4WB=9NmU34G6RObvEnU8OYJCeSnv=-VVuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e010d89e0b6b54904f400bfa9"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ztz3y_g-PE5jQFL3JpDaQ5G3gl0
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 09:19:28 -0000
On Mar 6, 2014 2:38 PM, "Jim Barnett" <1jhbarnett@gmail.com> wrote: > > On the scoping question, suppose SideA creates isolated streams (that can only be sent to SideB) while SideB creates unprotected streams to send to SideA. Are SideA's streams treated as unprotected, or are SideB's treated as isolated? Normally I would think that the weakest restriction would win, so that both sides' streams would be unprotected, but it would come as quite a surprise to A that something B did could cause his streams to lose isolation (in his own browser, I mean - A obviously can't control what B does with the stream once it gets there.) The idea is that ÄĻŁ streams/tracks would be protected and that means that both sides would have to apply the same treatment. That has several consequences, some of which could be considered negative. There are a few API niceties that could be added here to mitigate these. I omitted those from the first analysis, but I've added them here. For streams that change between isolated and non-isolated, there are two ways we handle this. We already have guidance that streams should send black/silence if they are (or become) isolated. And streams that become non-isolated fail safe. These protections are the most important, because they are fundamental properties required by the web sandbox. The scenario you describe is where each side starts with a different idea about what isolation properties are required. Without any other mechanisms, this fails safe - the (D)TLS handshake would be required to fail when implementations detect a mismatch in isolate state. In order to avoid issues with this, we probably need to consider the addition of a flag in SDP. That flag would be advisory only, but it would ensure that you could surface an error in createAnswer that indicates this mismatch prior to having the problem blow up in less obvious ways. BTW, we don't have to, but for mixed streams on one side, we should add an error to createOffer/createAnswer to block the creation of SDP when there are mixed isolation on streams. Again, that avoids the issue of having things break in non-obvious ways later.
- [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when travers… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Jim Spring
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Preserving stream isolation when tra… Randell Jesup