On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> Right. The thinking was that since we need to do a fair amount of work to
> allow audio and video to be exchanged safely and reliably peer-to-peer, we
> should allow web applications (with some limits) to use this transport
> mechanism for exchanging their own application data.

From a practical perspective, once you say "application data", the ability
to limit this seems to approach zero pretty quickly.  Even ignoring the
network-based firewall, doesn't this now require me to have a browser-based
firewall, to express my policies for what traffic I permit over this?

> The plan also is to be able to leverage DTLS to allow the creation of secure
> transports, which will have additional implications for DPI.

Agreed.  More importantly, I think that reinforces the idea that this is not
a simple add-on to audio/video functionality.  As I argued in
draft-hardie-mdtls-session,
you are really creating a multi-flow session layer.  I personally
think that's a fine
thing, but it is not an adjunct to a charter-it's the top-line bullet
item in my view.

regards,

Ted

PS.  As an aside, both Jake and I have since left Panasonic and the
project mentioned in
the draft cited above.  I do not believe that the sponsor lab will release the
code created for it at this time so the discussion I had with some
folks on that in Beijing
will likely need to take other paths.

>>
>>                       Harald
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTC-Web mailing list
>> RTC-Web@alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>
>