Network Working Group H. Tschofenig
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational B. Aboba
Expires: September 9, 2011 Microsoft Corporation
J. Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
D. McPherson
Verisign
March 8, 2011
Trends in Web Applications and the Implications on Standardization
draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00.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 post-standardization environment. In this
environment, there is of course still a role for the IETF to play:
existing working groups like HyBi and OAuth are examples of areas
where standards work is still required to support this application
development paradigm. Collectively, we need to identify areas where
the standardization is unlikely to be relevant in the future, and
focus our efforts on those areas where our application designs will
remain impactful.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
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 September 9, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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 September 9, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Impact for the Standardization Community . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Performance Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Transport Protocol Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Security, Privacy, and Cryptographic Processing
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Source Code Hiding Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 September 9, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
1. Introduction
The generic nature of the personal computer has enabled the
information technology community to develop applications that move
functionality available in the offline world into the digital world.
This flexibility has introduced security issues, 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. However, an
important aspect for ensuring speed of innovation is to reach
widespread deployment of a new technology, which to a large extent
requires the ability to run new code on end devices. With operating
system updates happening less frequently and the acceptance for
software downloads decreasing the browser with its limited
capabilities was seen by many as an ideal platform for running code
that could not cause harm. In particular, JavaScript has found
widespread deployment in browsers 'under the radar' of many companies
and is now referred as the 'assembly language of the Internet'.
JavaScript was initially perceived as being quite limited in
functionality. This perception has changed over the last couple of
years when it became the scripting language implemented in the
majority of browsers.
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. As a consequence, writing cross-platform applications
that can be deployed on a variety of target devices has always been
difficult. 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 in particular JavaScript it seems that the Internet
community has gotten a couple of steps closer to achieve this goal.
User experience has changed largely due to global coverage of high
speed cellular networks, a range of new end devices (such as
netbooks, smart phones, and Internet tablets), lower costs for
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
Internet access (often bundled with flatrate tariffs), and the shift
of the industry towards moving storage and computation into the
network. The younger generation of Internet users today has a very
different Internet experience than users 10 years ago. They just
click to a Web page of an application service provider and let the
browser execute JavaScript without any need to install new
applications. A positive side effect is that lower configuration
requirements are imposed on the user.
Today, many of the features previously available only with dedicated
browser plugins, such as Adobe Flash [1] and Microsoft's Silverlight
[2], will become widely available as standardized versions with HTML5
[3]. The expectation therefore is that new versions of browsers will
be shipped with these increased functionalities, thereby empowering
Web application developers.
This document focuses on the impact for the standardization
community, and to provide some recommendations.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
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. In this article we call
this communication legs, or legs for short. This is true for the
Post Office Protocol (POP) [4] and for the Internet Message Access
Protocol (IMAP) [5], as well as for real-time communication protocols
like the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [6] and the Extensible
Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [7]. The same can be observed
also at lower layers in the protocol stack, such as in various
tunneling and mobility protocols where the 'rendezvous service'
provides the initial contact point for communication (and may even
remain on the end-to-end communication path for the duration of the
communication). Standardization efforts often assume a model where
all legs should or need to be standardized, namely the end host to
application service provider and the cross domain interaction.
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. With few exceptions it was assumed
that the desired end state 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
considerably and requires far more interoperable network elements to
exist. This attitude is not particularly surprising given that many
standardization participants in the real-time communication area look
back to a regime that exactly follows a highly standardised eco-
system, namely the telecommunication business.
Email functionality offered by IMAP4 and POP3 is already being
replaced by an Ajax-based browser experience. Asynchronous
JavaScript and XML (Ajax) [8] is usually referred to as a combination
of tools that allows a developer to retrieve data from a Web server
in real-time. Interactions demanding real-time communication, such
as instant messaging and chat, are possible without any additional
plug-ins. Voice over IP and video support that requires access to
microphone and cameras is available in browsers but still requires
plug-in support today.
Allowing application developers to write code that is downloaded to
the end host when a user initially accesses the application service
is attractive and allows for fast innovation cycles. Within the IETF
the areas that are most impacted by this trend in the Web application
domain are quite naturally the 'Applications Area' as well as the
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
'Real-Time Applications and Infrastructure Area'. Implications for
security and transport layer mechanisms are to be expected as this
possibility becomes a reality.
Inevitably, the functions of many real-time communications protocols
will migrate to web browsers, for the simple reason that they match
the modalities of web communication: the Session Initiation Protocol,
for example, is essentially a rendezvous protocol implemented over an
interactive messaging layer, and the flows of that messaging layer
are easily replicated by web sockets. The challenge, however, is
that real-time communications protocols do not map onto the client/
server paradigm as easily as POP3 or IMAP. Email relies on client/
server protocols that allow users to interact with their local
domain, but uses SMTP, a separate interdomain protocol, to send mail
between domains. Similarly, real-time communications protocols tend
to have a client/server component that interacts with the local
domain and a server-to-server component n in the case of SIP, the
same protocol serves both functions. While it is clear that the web
can subsume the client/server function, could mail delivery similarly
move to some sort of interdomain server-to-server variant of HTTP?
Thusfar, that has prevailed in the mail world. When examining real-
time communications protocols, one must similarly ask what protocols
will be used to cross domain boundaries outside of the client/server
realm, and what are the implications for security, capability
negotiation, and similar core protocol functions when one introduces
interworking at the domain boundary.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
3. Challenges
Even though a number of new building blocks are being made available
at rapid speed, such as HTML5 and various JavaScript extensions,
there are still a number of limitations in today's browser
environment that prevent a broad range of applications from being
executed in the browser. We list a couple of those challenges, some
of which will be resolved in a year or two, while others will remain
a challenge for a long time.
3.1. Performance Limitations
JavaScript was not designed with high-performance in mind. Indeed,
over many years very little attention was paid to boost the
performance until recently when the Google JavaScript engine V8 [9]
started to compile JavaScript code directly into machine code when it
is first executed. More details about the design can be found at
[10].
A more serious limitation is the graphics capabilities in browsers.
Efforts are under way to enhance the API capabilities, for example
WebGL [11] 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 [12] utilizing JavaScript, the
WebSocket API [13] and the Web Storage API [14]) 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 [15]. 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.' [16]. The size of the game itself
(often due to the high quality textures) and software updates is
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
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 [17]
about elevating JavaScript performance through offloading processing
to the GPU. As stated in the announcement of the Jetpack 0.5 contest
[18]: '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 [19] 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) [20] is relevant for the sensing phase and this functionality
may need to be replicated in the browser environment. 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 increased IPv6
usage the number of NATs is likely to increase during a long
transition period. Furthermore, in many cases it might be desired to
perform route optimization for data traffic and to exchange it
directly between the two endpoints 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 [21] by utilizing ICE.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
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 move migrate applications that use these
capabilities. For example, JavaScript allows cryptographic
operations to be implemented (see [22] for a JavaScript AES or other
cryptographic functions [23] implementation) but access to hardware
crypto-processors, smart cards [24] or to key storages from
JavaScript is still at an early stage. The authors are also not
aware of a shared authorization policy store that allows a number of
websites to benefit from a central user preferences store, such as
settings regarding the distribution of location information. It is
quite likely that users might prefer to control their privacy
settings in one location, given a specific context, and have those
settings applied to all running Web applications to avoid private
information leakage.
The security model of JavaScript is rather weak in comparison to
those of Widgets [25] (available with different platforms/operating
systems, such as Mac OS X (via the dashboard), Windows 7, Opera,
etc.). JavaScript code does not declare what operations it is
intended to perform. Even with Widgets the question is who will
verify 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 in making reasonable decisions).
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 [26], for example using [27], to a web
server, which converts it to XML, for example into the PIDF-LO format
[28] to interoperate with another application service provider.
Consequently, this server then uses XMPP to deliver notifications to
its users, for example using [29]. No two of these encodings offer
the same privacy mechanisms nor security properties.
From the work in the W3C Geolocation [30] and the W3C Device API and
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
Policy [31] working group it was observable in recent years that
attempts to incorporate privacy mechanisms beyond notice and choice
are hard to accomplish with community consensus. While many of these
user-interface indications barely work on a PC with a large screen,
keyboard and mouse, it remains to be seen how successful they will be
on devices with display and input constraints. For a more detailed
discussion of privacy challenges related to initial implementations
of the Geolocation API see [32].. Further privacy related
information can be found with the recent 'W3C Workshop on Privacy for
Advanced Web APIs' [33].
The privacy implications of a heavily JavaScript-centered Web
environment are not yet well understood. For example, the SIP
privacy mechanisms, described in [34], [35], and [36]) 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. When the executable code itself is provided by
the application service provider (rather than an independent software
client vendor) then the privacy functionality for data minimization
can change at any point in time with little possibility that the user
will notice.
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 [37]. 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. Developers in the past rarely had to worry about such a
design criteria; how it will impact protocol design?
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
4. Recommendations
This section lists a couple of 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 a year-long standardization effort that may not lead to
successful deployment. Note: We use the term 'protocol' below to
refer to a protocol extension, a 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 the same speed as in the architecture described
in this document? If you do not have a credible answer to the
latter question you will run into trouble. If your answer is
"no", then you may skip the rest of the questions. Your protocol
may, for example, focus on backend server interactions or dealing
with lower-layer interactions.
2. Are you attempting to offer functionality typically found at the
application layer at the lower layers (such as network layer)?
If so, have you carefully investigated the cost vs. benefit
tradeoff?
3. Does your protocol design involve stakeholders who are 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? Are there other architectural variants that allow
innovation to happen at a higher speed?
4. When designing your protocol have you considered the Web
application environment? Do you understand Web development or do
you have experts from the Web development community involved in
your work? If the answer to this question is "no" then might
miss some important concepts.
5. Are there ways for your protocol to be carried on top of HTTP/
HTTPS? If the answer is "no", do you understand that a certain
user class will not be able to use your protocol?
6. Are your protocol requirements not met by the current Web
framework? (For the limits of the current Web framework see
Section 3?) If the answer is "no" then you may have a few years
time before the functionality is available even thought plug-ins
would allow your desired functionality to be deployed today
already. Since your requirements may be special already you are
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
targeting a small community. Is a several year standardization
effort justified to satisfy the need of that community or are
there other ways to serve your user base?
7. Have you implemented your protocol in a tyipcal Web development
programming langage? If the answer is "no" then you might not
know whether there are challenges with the usage in a Web
context. You may be using, for example, an encoding that is
foreign to Web application developers or you may demand
functionality that requires browser extensions.
8. Is your protocol deployed already? If the answer is "no", who is
going to deploy it? Particularly interesting is the case when
none of the standardization participants have a substantial
impact on deployment. In that case you are hoping that someone
else finds it useful and you could as well publish an academic
paper instead.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
5. Conclusions
This document to highlight recent trends in Web application
communities 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 JavaScript and HTML5 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 [38] 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 [39]
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 [40]. For future work on improving the performance
of the Web, for example [41], improvements in HTTP, or common
security functionality for the Web as standardized in the Web
Security working group [42].
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'
[43]. As recent IETF work in this area the Open Authentication
Protocol (oauth) [44] working group could be referenced. OAuth
deals with more sophisticated security protocol interactions that
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
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 [45], the Prototype JavaScript
Framework [46], MooTools [47], YUI [48] and Narwahl [49]. 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) [50] 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 September 9, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
6. Security Considerations
This document includes discussions related to security.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
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 Isom[/
1000]ki, Spencer Dawkins, Jan Kall, Jan Ignatius and Thomas Roessler.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
9. Informative References
[1] "Adobe Flash Player", Sep 2010.
[2] "Microsoft Silverlight", Sep 2010.
[3] "W3C HTML Working Group Charter", Sep 2010.
[4] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996.
[5] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[6] 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.
[7] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, October 2004.
[8] "Ajax (programming)", Sep 2010.
[9] "V8 JavaScript Engine", Sep 2010.
[10] "V8 JavaScript Engine - Design Elements", Sep 2010.
[11] "WebGL", Sep 2010.
[12] "Quake II Google Web Toolkit (GWT) Port", Sep 2010.
[13] "The WebSocket API", Sep 2010.
[14] "Web Storage", Aug 2010.
[15] "Second Life", Sep 2010.
[16] "Private communication between Joshua Bell, Hannes Tschofenig
and Jon Peterson about browser performance limitations",
Aug 2010.
[17] "Elevating JavaScript Performance Through GPU Power", Jan 2010.
[18] "Jetpack 0.5 Contest: A Winner", Nov 2009.
[19] Rosenberg, J., "UDP and TCP as the New Waist of the Internet
Hourglass", draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00 (work
in progress), February 2008.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
[20] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April 2010.
[21] "Google Talk for Developers: Important Concepts", Sep 2010.
[22] "JavaScript Implementation of AES Advanced Encryption Standard
in Counter Mode", Sep 2010.
[23] "crypto-js: JavaScript implementations of standard and secure
cryptographic algorithms", Sep 2010.
[24] "JavaScript Crypto", Sep 2010.
[25] "W3C Web Applications (WebApps) Working Group", Sep 2010.
[26] "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", Sep 2010.
[27] "The GeoJSON Format Specification", Jun 2008.
[28] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[29] "XEP-0080: User Location", Sep 2009.
[30] "W3C Geolocation Working Group", Sep 2010.
[31] "Device APIs and Policy Working Group", Sep 2010.
[32] Doty, N., Mulligan, D., and E. Wilde, "Privacy Issues of the
W3C Geolocation API, UC Berkeley School of Information Report
2010-038", Feb 2010.
[33] "W3C Workshop on Privacy for Advanced Web APIs", Jul 2010.
[34] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 2002.
[35] Munakata, M., Schubert, S., and T. Ohba, "Guidelines for Using
the Privacy Mechanism for SIP", RFC 5379, February 2010.
[36] Munakata, M., Schubert, S., and T. Ohba, "User-Agent-Driven
Privacy Mechanism for SIP", RFC 5767, April 2010.
[37] Crockford, D., "(JavaScript) Minification v Obfuscation",
Mar 2006.
[38] "nodeJS", Sep 2010.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
[39] "CommonJS", Sep 2010.
[40] "IETF BiDirectional or Server-Initiated HTTP (hybi) Working
Group Charter", Mar 2011.
[41] "Let's make the web faster", Sep 2010.
[42] "IETF Web Security (websec) Working Group Charter", Mar 2011.
[43] "Data Portability Project: Share and Remix Data using Open
Standards", Sep 2010.
[44] "IETF Open Authentication Protocol (oauth) Working Group
Charter", Sep 2010.
[45] "jQuery: The Write Less, Do More, JavaScript Library",
Sep 2010.
[46] "Prototype JavaScript framework: Easy Ajax and DOM anipultion
for dynamic web applications", Sep 2010.
[47] "MooTools - a compact javascript framework", Sep 2010.
[48] "Yahoo! User Interface Library 3", Sep 2010.
[49] "Narwhal - A general purpose JavaScript platform", Sep 2010.
[50] "Document Object Model", Sep 2010.
Tschofenig, et al. Expires September 9, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Web Applications: Trends and Implications March 2011
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 September 9, 2011 [Page 22]