Internet DRAFT - draft-tschofenig-post-standardization
draft-tschofenig-post-standardization
Network Working Group H. Tschofenig
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational B. Aboba
Expires: November 10, 2012 Microsoft Corporation
J. Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
D. McPherson
Verisign
May 9, 2012
Trends in Web Applications and the Implications on Standardization
draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-02.txt
Abstract
Advancements in the design of web browsers have introduced
fundamental changes to the architecture of application protocols.
The widespread availability and growing sophistication of JavaScript
interpreters in browsers enables web servers to push to browsers all
of the application logic required to implement a client-server
protocol. Consequently, many client-server applications that once
required an installed client on a host computer now can rely simply
on a modern browser to act as a client for the purposes of a
particular application. For example, where once email clients
required a custom application to access an inbox, increasingly a web
browser can serve this purpose as well as the purpose-built
applications of the past. Similarly, HTTP with the assistance of
JavaScript can subsume the functions performed by the protocols like
POP3 and IMAP. The need for Internet standards beyond HTTP to
implement an email inbox application consequently diminishes - why
author standards and worry about interoperability of clients and
servers when the server can simply push to the client all the code it
needs to be interoperable?
Many client-server applications on the Internet could potential
migrate to this code distribution methodology.
[Note: A separate mailing list has been created for discussions
related to this document and it can be found here:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webapps ]
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 10, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Impact for the Standardization Community . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Limitations of Mobile Code Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Performance Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Transport Protocol Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Security, Privacy, and Cryptographic Processing
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Source Code Hiding Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
1. Introduction
The generic nature of the personal computer has enabled application
providers to write general purpose programs and to make it available
for download. This flexibility has lead to lots of innovation on the
Internet but has also introduced security challenges since it is
difficult for end users to judge the trustworthiness of downloaded
programs in any reasonable way. Consequently, many users are very
suspicious about any download they are asked to accept. An important
goal of those deploying applications is to reach a widespread
deployment as fast as possible and to react to changing needs as
quickly as possible, which to a large extent requires the ability to
continously update code on end devices. With operating system
updates happening less frequently and the acceptance for software
downloads decreasing the browser was seen by many as an ideal
platform for dynamically downloaded running code. JavaScript was
initially perceived as being quite limited in functionality but has
been supported by all browsers. This perception has changed over the
last couple of years when it became the scripting language
implemented in the majority of browsers, also referred as the
'assembly language of the Internet'.
For application developers writing code running on Web servers as
well as for applications that are downloaded to the end device the
desire was always to develop the application once without having to
consider all the different runtimes (operating systems or browsers).
Now, with the PC and the cellular phone segments getting increasingly
blurry this desire is stronger than ever considering the increased
number of obstacles that have to be dealt with. For example, it is
highly unlikely that an application will work on various different
devices even if all the devices were produced by a single mobile
phone vendor. Getting users to download new applications, and to
install software updates also leaves software developers in a
difficult situation.
How can software be developed so that it can (1) be updated instantly
when a new version becomes available, (2) be used across a wide range
of devices, and (3) be as powerful as regular desktop applications?
This sounds almost impossible but with the increased capabilities of
Web browsers, and JavaScript in particular, it seems that the
Internet community has gotten a couple of steps closer to achieve
this goal.
This document describes these developments, highlights impacts for
the standardization community, and provides recommendations for those
developing applications.
Note that the writeup heavily refers to JavaScript as a mechanism for
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
mobile code distribution. There is, however, nothing special about
JavaScript as a language by itself and it may well be possible that
other languages will be developed for usage in other environments
offering similar or even superior capabilities.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
2. Impact for the Standardization Community
In the application area communication protocols often follow the
pattern where an end host utilizes some application service provider
for communication setup and sometimes also for message routing
towards the other communication end point. Examples of such a
standardized communication protocols are the Post Office Protocol
(POP) [1], the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) [2], as well
as the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [3] and the Extensible
Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [4].
Figure 1 shows a typical scenario where two hosts, Alice and Bob,
interact with an application provider. A desired interoperability
goal often has been to let a software vendor develop the software
clients at the end hosts to interact with a random application
provider offering the specific protocol implementation.
.................
| |
| Application |
| Service |
| Provice |
| Example.com |
|_______________|
_, .
,' `.
_,' `.
,' `._
-' -
,''''''''| ,''''''''|
| End | | End |
| Host | | Host |
| Alice | | Bob |
|........' |........'
Figure 1: Communication Partners from a Single Domain
Many protocols developed in the IETF also offer the ability to let
users from different application service providers (via their end
hosts) to communicate. Figure 2 shows this architecture graphically,
where additional interoperability needs are created between the
application service provider domains.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
................. .................
| | | |
| Application | | Application |
| Service |--------------| Service |
| Provider | | Provider |
| Example.com | | Example.org |
|_______________| |_______________|
_, .
,' `.
_,' `.
,' `._
-' -
,''''''''| ,''''''''|
| End | | End |
| Host | | Host |
| Alice | | Bob |
|........' |........'
Figure 2: Communication Partners from Multiple Domains
These two figures did not make the attempt to differentiate signaling
message exchanges from the actual data traffic exchange. The data
traffic may be exchanged directly between the end hosts themselves
and therefore creates additional interoperability requirements when
those software clients shall be developed by independent parties.
While many standardization efforts in the IETF have considered the
possibility for using proprietary protocols along the end host to
application service provider leg, this has usually been considered as
exception or a transition case. It is typically assumed that the
desired end state of standardization is to move from a proprietary
protocol to the standardized alternative in the long run, which
allows client software vendors to interact with all forms of
application service providers. Such an approach increases the need
for standardization and requires far more interoperable network
elements to exist.
With a mobile code distribution platform as the Web with JavaScript
offers it is possible to leave the end host to application service
provider interaction largely non-standardized. Only very few
standardization actions are required, to for example, enhance the
capability of JavaScript to perform additional functions, such as the
access to underlying hardware functions (e.g., microphone, GPS module
or a camera).
Quite clearly applications can be designed in a way that fewer
standardized client-server protocols are needed. The question
therefore remains for those actively pursuing standardization as to
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
where the limitations of the JavaScript-based mobile code
distribution approach is. Section 3 tries to explore this aspect in
more detail.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
3. Limitations of Mobile Code Distribution
The usage of JavaScript is, however, not always the right choice for
application developers and even though a number of new building
blocks are being made available, such as HTML5 [5] and various
JavaScript extensions, there are still a number of limitations in
today's browser environment. We list a couple of those challenges,
some of which will be resolved in the near future as standardization
and deployment progresses, while others will remain a challenge for a
long time.
3.1. Performance Limitations
Early JavaScript implementations did not offer high performance.
Over many years very little attention was paid to boost the
performance until recently when the Google JavaScript engine V8 [6]
started to compile JavaScript code directly into machine code when it
is first executed. More details about the design can be found at
[7].
A more serious limitation is the graphics capabilities in browsers.
Efforts are under way to enhance the API capabilities, for example
WebGL [8] bringing 3D graphics to the browser with features similar
to OpenGL ES 2.0 that can be used in HTML5 canvas elements but
expensive computations on the end host need to migrate from the
Central Processing Unit (CPU) to the Graphics Processing Unit (GPU)
for proper performance. Simple 3D games (similar to the recently
demonstrated Quake II port to HTML5 [9] utilizing JavaScript, the
WebSocket API [10] and the Web Storage API [11]) can now be
implemented but state-of-the-art games and virtual worlds are out of
reach. The problem is with the number of polygons that many games
and virtual worlds need to process and display. Games, like Quake,
use a limited number of textures, and the complexity of the scene
graph is small.
In comparison to virtual worlds where the content is put together by
users, in many games the playing field is carefully designed by
experts. This has implications for the complexity of the scene
graph. On the other hand, most virtual worlds do not rely on rapid
communication updates in the same way that many action and tactic
games do. Joshua Bell illustrated this with an example of 'a quiet
scene with a single user running around in SecondLife [12]. A
teleport to a region can easily have a scene graph with 2000 nodes, a
couple hundred 3D textures, 4000 vertexes, and 20 MByte of vertex
data. This corresponds to the maximum a graphics developer would
typically like to have in a state-of-the-art game. In a busy scene
with lot of user generated content and avatars the volume easily
jumps up by a factor of five.' [13]. The size of the game itself
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
(often due to the high quality textures) and software updates is
impressive; often reaching beyond several 100 Mbytes. Utilizing
persistent storage and caching in combination with more aggressive
client-server interactions demands a different style of programming
and therefore also puts different constraints on the protocol design.
This might also stress the current Mbyte limits for Web storage.
Initial work to deal with more sophisticated graphics computation has
started already, as described in the recently published article [14]
about elevating JavaScript performance through offloading processing
to the GPU. As stated in the announcement of the Jetpack 0.5 contest
[15]: 'By giving webpages and add-ons easy access to the raw
processing power available on most computers, the range of abilities
that the web can have greatly increases.'.
3.2. Transport Protocol Limitations
In [16] Jonathan Rosenberg argued that the new waist of the Internet
hourglass is UDP and TCP, rather than IP as in the initial design.
Today, application protocol designers may, however, get the
impression that tunneling inside HTTP or even HTTPS is required to
get an application running in a large number of environments,
especially to reach a customer base that is connected to the Internet
through an enterprise network. Needless to say that more complex
tunneling leads to more complexity, the data transport adds overhead
and the initial environment sensing phase adds delays. This is
certainly true for the VoIP context where the payload data is
comparatively small to the overall header size (including the TCP/
HTTP headers). The work on Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE) [17] is relevant for the sensing phase and this functionality
may need to be replicated in the browser environment. For this
purpose it is more and more common to limit the number of individual
connections and to instead multiplex them over a single transport
connection. See, for example, SPDY [18] and developments in the VoIP
context [19]. Worse than inefficiency is that some real-time
applications do not behave well with the retransmission behavior of
TCP. For real-time voice and video applications, for virtual worlds,
and for many games it is acceptable to loose video and voice frames
from time to time without waiting for retransmission.
Adding the support for UDP to browsers again adds complexity, as the
experience with Voice over IP showed, particularly when the protocols
are not multiplexed together, so that it is necessary to identify
multiple working end-to-end paths for the traversal of Network
Address Translators (NATs) and firewalls. With the transition to
IPv6 the number of NATs is likely to increase. Furthermore, in many
cases it might be desired to perform route optimization for data
traffic and to exchange it directly between the two endpoints
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
whenever possible to reduce the financial costs and the added delay
of using an anchor point. For example, Google Talk only requires the
involvement of relays for 8% of their calls, as reported in [20] by
utilizing ICE.
It should be noted that audio and video streaming capabilities have
been available in the browser for a while with plug-in support. More
sophisticated audio support, such as tagging audio with x/y positions
for 3D audio, is not even possible with the Adobe Flash application
today. The challenge with video support in browsers is based on the
lack of universal support of a specific video codec. The lack of
hardware support is secondary although relevant for increased
performance and lower energy consumption. Naturally, supporting
different codecs makes the work of web developers and content
distributors difficult.
3.3. Security, Privacy, and Cryptographic Processing Limitations
Many protocol mechanisms have several built-in cryptographic
primitives and and the same capabilities must be available in the
browser in order to migrate applications that use these capabilities.
For example, JavaScript allows cryptographic operations to be
implemented (see [21] for a JavaScript AES or other cryptographic
functions [22] implementation) but access to hardware crypto-
processors, smart cards [23] or to key storages from JavaScript is
still at an early stage and, at the time of writing, not available as
a standardized JavaScript API.
The security model of JavaScript is different than the one offered by
Widgets [24] (available with different platforms/operating systems,
such as Mac OS X (via the dashboard), Windows 7, Opera, etc.) or
classical operating systems. JavaScript code does not declare what
operations it is intended to perform. Even with Widgets there is the
question of who verifies any of these privileges. It can hardly be
assumed that the end user will be bothered with such a responsibility
(due to the lack of his or her expertise. Furthermore, the semantic
of end-to-end security is challenged when the distinct communication
legs support protocols with different semantics, and dissimilar
encodings. Imagine a browser that sends location data encoded in
JSON [25], for example using [26], to a web server, which converts it
to XML, for example into the PIDF-LO format [27] to interoperate with
another application service provider. Consequently, this server then
uses XMPP to deliver notifications to its users, for example using
[28]. No two of these encodings offer the same privacy mechanisms
nor security properties.
The privacy implications of a heavily JavaScript-centered Web
environment are not yet well understood. For example, the SIP
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
privacy mechanisms, described in [29], [30], and [31]) rely to a
large degree on the end point to select independent RTP/SRTP relays,
and to obfuscate important header fields based on the context
provided by the user. One could argue that these standardized SIP
privacy extensions represent a community design even though those who
deploy ultimately make the final decisions about what policies to
use. When the executable code itself is provided by the application
service provider then the privacy functionality for data minimization
can change at any point in time with little possibility that the user
will notice. Only the application service provider makes decisions
about what functionality it desires without having to consult or
agree with anyone else.
3.4. Source Code Hiding Limitations
In many commercial environments it is not desirable to make source
code available to the public. With JavaScript the source code is
sent from the server to the browser and only compression and
obfuscation tools are available [32]. However, the only way to
protect code is to not expose it to observers, instead leaving the
important code on the server-side and have a minimal public
Javascript code segment use asynchronous message exchanges with the
server.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
4. Recommendations
This section lists a few basic questions for protocol authors. We
hope that in answering these questions honestly a thought process
will be triggered that may lead you to re-consider your design before
starting the standardization effort that may not lead to successful
deployment. Note: We use the term 'protocol' below to refer to a
protocol extension, a single protocol, or to a complete protocol
suite, or an entire architecture.
1. Does your standardization effort fall priminarily into the
client-to-server interaction described in this document? If the
answer is "yes", is there a story how the involved stakeholders
can innovate at a high speed?
2. Are you attempting to offer functionality typically found at the
application layer at the lower layers? If so, have you carefully
investigated the cost vs. benefit tradeoff?
3. Does your protocol design involve other stakeholders whoes goals
are either not known or potentially not aligned with the goals of
your envisioned deployment, i.e. for successful deployment do you
require cooperation of stakeholders who may have disincentives
(or unclear incentives) to deploy your protocol?
4. When designing your protocol have you considered the Web
application environment? Do you understand Web development
yourself or do you have experts from the Web development
community involved in your work?
5. Does your protocol design offer the ability to carry payloads on
HTTP/HTTPS?
6. Why is the current Web framework unable to meet your application
requirements? Have you documented the reasons?
7. Have you implemented your protocol in a tyipcal Web development
programming language? Hands-on experience may help you to detect
problems with using your application design in a Web context in
early stages of the design.
8. Is your protocol deployed already? If not, who do you envision
to implement and deploy it?
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
5. Conclusions
This document aims to highlight recent trends in Web application
development with impact to Internet standardization. In a nutshell,
there is a certain class of applications for which the
standardization need is diminishing: chances are good that your
standardization work will not be relevant relevant in such an
environment.
A lot of this change is driven by mobile code distribution using
JavaScript executed on the end host (typically in the Web browser)
while server-to-server communication is not yet impacted.
We are, however, already seeing server-side JavaScript
implementations. NodeJS [33] is such an example that is built on
top of the V8 JavaScript engine. It runs multiple concurrent
JavaScript execution engines in one thread allowing to develop a
massively concurrent Web server in JavaScript, addressing a
typical pain point for server developers when implementing
distributed systems. As another example, CommonJS [34] defines
APIs that handle many common application needs, including those
that go beyond the usage in Web browsers (such as regular command
line programs).
Hence, just as the barriers for rapidly deploying code have dropped
on the client side; the server side will likely follow.
Even if there are challenges for standardization there are other
areas where work is needed:
o The development of of protocol mechanisms to support a larger
range of applications will have an important role to play in the
future. Examples of such efforts include the currenly ongoing
work on 'BiDirectional or Server-Initiated HTTP' in the HYBI
working group [35]. For future work on improving the performance
of the Web, for example [36], improvements in HTTP, or common
security functionality for the Web as standardized in the Web
Security working group [37].
o In those areas where application islands want to interact with
larger eco-systems the need for cross-domain communication arises.
Often, this is done in a proprietary way but for larger
distributed systems and for common functions standardized
solutions are valuable. This can be observed today within the
VoIP environment, although much slower than expected, in the case
of Voice over IP peering but also in the Internet identity
management community under the umbrella of 'data portability'
[38]. As recent IETF work in this area the Open Authentication
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
Protocol (oauth) [39] working group could be referenced. OAuth
deals with more sophisticated security protocol interactions that
require multiple parties to participate in an interoperable way.
o Everyone knows that protocol design is hard regardless whether it
happens inside a standards developing organization, like the IETF
or W3C, or in some other less structured community. For Web
developers the standardization results are often only visible if
they appear in form of rich JavaScript libraries and development
frameworks, such as JQuery [40], the Prototype JavaScript
Framework [41], MooTools [42], YUI [43] and Narwahl [44]. In
order to have an impact in the Web community it is essential for
working groups participants to think about how to their protocols
can be deployed in a Web environment, for by making JavaScript
implementations available. The desire in the standards developing
community, including the IETF, to be programming language agnostic
and to avoid API standardization may need to be re-visited in
light of these recent developments. Extending JavaScript may, for
example, require new Document Object Models (DOMs) [45] and these
could serve as a valuable contribution.
Offering almost unlimited capabilities to JavaScript/HTML running in
a browser (in the same style as native applications run in an
operating system environment) will raise security concerns and will
consequently require countermeasures (such as 'deep inspection' and
blocking). This in turn will sparkle new ideas to bypass limitations
introduced, for example by utilizing new scripting languages with
different capabilities, etc. This is an arms race that the IT
industry is already able to observe already with deep packet
inspection firewalls and peer-to-peer networks during the last few
years.
It is unavoidable to get the impression that the hard problems,
particularly to security concerns regarding the distribution of new
software in whatever form, have not been tackled. Instead, the
browser becomes the new operating system, inherits the same
weaknesses and is likely to share the same fate.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
6. Security Considerations
This document includes discussions related to security.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Gonzalo Camarillo, Robert Sparks,
Alissa Cooper, Blaine Cook, Alexey Melnikov, Peter Saint-Andre,
Jonathan Rosenberg, Lisa Dusseault, Joshua Bell, John Hurliman,
Meadhbh Hamrick, Mark Nottingham, Anders Rundgren, Markus Isomaki,
Spencer Dawkins, Jan Kall, Jan Ignatius and Thomas Roessler.
An early version of this document was written to provide additional
background for the IETF#80 IAB technical plenary discussion in
Prague, March 2011. A number of persons provided their feedback,
including Dave Crocker, Pete Resnick, Leslie Daigle, Harald
Alvestrand, Jonathan Rosenberg, Dave Cridland, Nico Williams, Peter
Saint-Andre, Graham Klyne, Philip Hallam-Baker, Scott Brim, Henry
Sinnreich, Eliot Lear, Mark Nottingham, Paul Hoffman, Ted Hardie,
Cyrus Daboo, Claudio Allocchio, and Sam Hartman. We thank them for
the lively discussion.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
9. Informative References
[1] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996.
[2] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[3] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[4] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, October 2004.
[5] "W3C HTML Working Group Charter", Sep 2010.
[6] "V8 JavaScript Engine", Sep 2010.
[7] "V8 JavaScript Engine - Design Elements", Sep 2010.
[8] "WebGL", Sep 2010.
[9] "Quake II Google Web Toolkit (GWT) Port", Sep 2010.
[10] "The WebSocket API", Sep 2010.
[11] "Web Storage", Aug 2010.
[12] "Second Life", Sep 2010.
[13] "Private communication between Joshua Bell, Hannes Tschofenig
and Jon Peterson about browser performance limitations",
Aug 2010.
[14] "Elevating JavaScript Performance Through GPU Power", Jan 2010.
[15] "Jetpack 0.5 Contest: A Winner", Nov 2009.
[16] Rosenberg, J., "UDP and TCP as the New Waist of the Internet
Hourglass", draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00 (work
in progress), February 2008.
[17] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April 2010.
[18] "SPDY: An experimental protocol for a faster web", Oct 2011.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
[19] Westerlund, M., Burman, B., and C. Perkins, "RTP Multiplexing
Architecture",
draft-westerlund-avtcore-multiplex-architecture-01 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[20] "Google Talk for Developers: Important Concepts", Sep 2010.
[21] "JavaScript Implementation of AES Advanced Encryption Standard
in Counter Mode", Sep 2010.
[22] "crypto-js: JavaScript implementations of standard and secure
cryptographic algorithms", Sep 2010.
[23] "JavaScript Crypto", Sep 2010.
[24] "W3C Web Applications (WebApps) Working Group", Sep 2010.
[25] "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", Sep 2010.
[26] "The GeoJSON Format Specification", Jun 2008.
[27] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[28] "XEP-0080: User Location", Sep 2009.
[29] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.
[30] Munakata, M., Schubert, S., and T. Ohba, "Guidelines for Using
the Privacy Mechanism for SIP", RFC 5379, February 2010.
[31] Munakata, M., Schubert, S., and T. Ohba, "User-Agent-Driven
Privacy Mechanism for SIP", RFC 5767, April 2010.
[32] Crockford, D., "(JavaScript) Minification v Obfuscation",
Mar 2006.
[33] "nodeJS", Sep 2010.
[34] "CommonJS", Sep 2010.
[35] "IETF BiDirectional or Server-Initiated HTTP (hybi) Working
Group Charter", Mar 2011.
[36] "Let's make the web faster", Sep 2010.
[37] "IETF Web Security (websec) Working Group Charter", Mar 2011.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
[38] "Data Portability Project: Share and Remix Data using Open
Standards", Sep 2010.
[39] "IETF Open Authentication Protocol (oauth) Working Group
Charter", Sep 2010.
[40] "jQuery: The Write Less, Do More, JavaScript Library",
Sep 2010.
[41] "Prototype JavaScript framework: Easy Ajax and DOM anipultion
for dynamic web applications", Sep 2010.
[42] "MooTools - a compact javascript framework", Sep 2010.
[43] "Yahoo! User Interface Library 3", Sep 2010.
[44] "Narwhal - A general purpose JavaScript platform", Sep 2010.
[45] "Document Object Model", Sep 2010.
[46] "W3C Workshop on Privacy for Advanced Web APIs", Jul 2010.
[47] "W3C Geolocation Working Group", Sep 2010.
[48] "Ajax (programming)", Sep 2010.
[49] "Device APIs and Policy Working Group", Sep 2010.
[50] Doty, N., Mulligan, D., and E. Wilde, "Privacy Issues of the
W3C Geolocation API, UC Berkeley School of Information Report
2010-038", Feb 2010.
[51] "Adobe Flash Player", Sep 2010.
[52] "Microsoft Silverlight", Sep 2010.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications May 2012
Authors' Addresses
Hannes Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo 02600
Finland
Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Email: bernarda@microsoft.com
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
1800 Sutter St Suite 570
Concord, CA 94520
US
Email: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
Danny McPherson
Verisign
US
Email: danny@tcb.net
Tschofenig, et al. Expires November 10, 2012 [Page 22]
