W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Dealing with isolation state mismatches

From: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:17:02 +0100
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C82F0582-4321-4957-9730-DE6D8DA58BD5@westhawk.co.uk>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On 15 May 2014, at 06:21, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is probably best handled in a room, but here goes.
> A has isolated streams because it thinks it's making a "private" call.
> (Scare quotes intentional.)
> B has regular streams.
> A and B try to establish a call.  Nothing in the signaling they are
> using (SDP, woo!) indicates that they are screwed.  The browser runs
> the O/A exchange and it seems OK, until the DTLS session blows up.
> Do we want a signal in SDP for this state?  I think that it would be
> nice.  We can put a wee attributey thing on the a=identity line.
> Sorry, scratch that, we can request that the RTCWEB working group
> consider this as a new requirement on their signaling work.

I think you are assuming that the only signalling between A and B is the SDP.
I’d imagine that in 99.99% of usages they will be visiting the same website
‘confessional.com’ so both ends have javascript that requires the isolated taint.

You only have a problem if a confessional.com user is somehow able to 
connect to ‘theJeremyKileShowLive.com’ and accidentally broadcast their
‘private confession’. For this to happen confessional.com and theJeremyKileShowLive.com
would have to agree to exchange signalling, but not bother to discuss their respective
business models, which I think is unlikely. 

A failure to connect is a perfectly satisfactory outcome.

There is a question as to how we indicate DTLS setup failures, but isn’t that covered elsewhere?


Received on Thursday, 15 May 2014 08:17:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:58 UTC