W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Signaling & peerconnection API questions

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:40:23 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org
Message-Id: <7279479A-8A6F-4CBB-A0F1-C257CA4886FC@cisco.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>

On Jul 19, 2011, at 12:21 , Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 7/19/2011 10:49 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
>>> So basically the web app could fake an SDP offer (indicating no support
>>> of ICE) locally, feed it to a PeerConnection object and then use 'send'
>>> to have the browser send data to an IP address and port of its choice
>>> (the address/port in the fake SDP).
>>> This is not at all my area, so apologies up front if I got things wrong.
>> I don't know about the audio and video streams, but at least in the case
>> of the data streams, this is the kind of thing we avoid having to worry
>> about by having the data stream be indistinguishable from line noise.
> I think an SDP offer that indicates no support of ICE MUST be rejected as failing to comply with the security model. No handshake, no sending audio, video, or data to them.
> Matthew Kaufman

+1  - seriously, I can't see any alternative to this 
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 22:40:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:25 UTC