Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle, privacy and bogus addresses

Emil Ivov <> Thu, 14 March 2013 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D06D11E8224 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wUkWCDGKHEjM for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6DA11E8103 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id wy12so2708267pbc.21 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=rxxD7P46R86v2tllK/E4OKbCYz5glM2kMWetLW8YISA=; b=oEysqk65kcT0rioD3zSBh+zm2aXWdw+NomjlRsTQK+faFRgdlf35dgswZivbuwO+u5 Si13hmGOmVyqzoBNc3bDtSQ11tE3AD7DpGSo4N2YtUDqsOPLMPc+cqQLZ7l/PZto3Gjl J4uLdDTHVTBkK2OyeG9T+nU4ng/FLo/OWke4cVG1UgazW4kK42iBAWZ/lx5MoK5/3e9W +WEwsPKiio3bBcRYH3S/Ft+Udm3cyIyul8s+sWItOzoOFw1q+k8JspJsURi5EBRTuIBR z3i5nUQnWKJ71yDpeExBLPTVY6TJTHj3WBnHMEt5erjNiT+inHQ0JW2r1bY75z4QLp9+ 89oA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id oa1mr8986638pbb.134.1363291983980; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id cy4sm3226196pbc.13.2013. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:12:58 -0400
From: Emil Ivov <>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlKLDGvKkDyQLF+3sNxrywuX/XS1b3kq86+tp9Kl+wbpi4h3WhZqqRP6IGs2u2RiyEdewkG
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle, privacy and bogus addresses
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:13:05 -0000

Hey Martin,

On 14.03.13, 16:00, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Someone proposed that we use 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.


> 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 :).


> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list