Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle, privacy and bogus addresses

Hey Martin,

On 14.03.13, 16:00, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Someone proposed that we use 0.0.0.1:9 to signal "no candidates".
> 
> I don't believe this to be necessary and would rather we don't go there at all.

When we talked about this on Tuesday, it appeared as if we had consensus
and the only issue was about making a choice between one of the many
possible options. (127..., 0.0.0.X, something else that IANA would
allocate for us).

How do you get from that to "I'd rather we didn't do it at all" ?

> If privacy concerns do not prevent the sharing of addressing
> information, trickle can proceed with host candidates.  This is not a
> real concern.

Right.

> If privacy protection is paramount, pay the price and allocate a turn
> candidate prior to sending the offer or answer.  It's only the caller
> that is required to pay this cost,
>
>
> which is a little silly because the
> answerer is the most likely to want this sort of protection.
> 
> Furthermore, in WebRTC, we have a candidate pool that would ensure
> that would allow us to prime the answerer in preparation for receiving
> an offer such that overall session setup would not take any longer.
> If anyone is unconvinced, I'm happy to walk through a proof of this.

I am not sure I got the idea, so yes, please do :).

Emil

> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> 

-- 
https://jitsi.org