Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling]

Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com> Mon, 04 June 2018 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240FA12025C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GZfqO4PagFHF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl0-x22c.google.com (mail-pl0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93381200F1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id z9-v6so15513050plk.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=BjVCJbiarmticXH2V8QKNDguCNVmoDV6v/zGD/g896k=; b=d1wHNWJ4cfbd4/ngRgKKao+c+OepJ1zRXT1H/gSrYjA8I3hKT2HLaHq8kH+hSWIA8N Dty8woU+XezIry6/DdTa7XfmKFQNEnq6krFNOUzVcK7/rvn+Kqo/0/9LJqgVo1Jy1+A1 RaBFLBbxGthP/t6dS/7uWsorU/ngzJj5f26QQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=BjVCJbiarmticXH2V8QKNDguCNVmoDV6v/zGD/g896k=; b=JIgUYncZmLJ5RNznaYvNbg6FHSyTjzYVWpO/PGSnBFSudV90xwCPARtwvvIzIePEBa tN1LHAgLo8mTcYCYNMc0gs2luWKzLaQddpxolhazSf/deW8tzP/TLfQISRbVnh9R6Uhh TASj8CWBSeOsJCmOvoRNfV+t/HMNsuxxs6ktfLh83cKOZqzK8HwMmyDxfxXP+bG5CyLg k45zLjgMUaGvyE4p59uVaxN21vEsD8JxsDkoTTu28SQk+Pty2oLs4ZX7MZyMAhSStf67 FGMlY4R2N8Y3aevrP/MSsDaL6BbquApB9YHlTMXaHPIWr+JGc8UJnptHzckBpd6JYHaU BD/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcpdhfBr7m+7ngMOgMRcoxTmGfXxEZGYD9Q3fdjCcfM2v6d8ALW azevWKPQPEg8P/9pbnp0xCckLg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKK0UDClhzbDU4BPYCNSSNAXILPax0Kruw6d9VhzjbhB3LPb+Rh3E+nvwgXsJJFO9QiL/TysUg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:2c01:: with SMTP id m1-v6mr19285492plb.347.1528085517015; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4600:3f31:7060:4a41:4c65:761a? ([2601:647:4600:3f31:7060:4a41:4c65:761a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i4-v6sm21248421pfk.133.2018.06.03.21.11.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>
Message-Id: <0051C70E-362F-4E20-9DF8-9290DD4EB989@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED41ABE0-5863-4C84-B2A3-7D59B67B9376"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:11:53 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-1KHxmE+i0H5wJ68L3_-L=pcUiFwSz=9pTGybrr7V-5dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <1D5B431C-801E-4F8C-8026-6BCBB72FF478@sn3rd.com> <F9EB7388-9E76-43E0-8C9B-61D3E50357F7@mozilla.com> <CAOJ7v-38kH4peZVVJU8itve2P+93eGaVdJ60MVcaRo3Xu86uTQ@mail.gmail.com> <296F0D20-F716-4C6C-8ABB-9FC21FC8189D@mozilla.com> <CAOJ7v-3wBVdfacAvb=VOggMXWMD1-5Oq-GCb5cNSCy3_-ur3Gw@mail.gmail.com> <A58B5A3B-DF5E-484B-ADD5-EBA539D0F250@iii.ca> <CAOJ7v-3FbN7v00Lzc5kJV4Nsw5DD0c6zLDLY+x1AgSOEHSt_WA@mail.gmail.com> <D6DEE1F6-A105-4095-902D-CB6F5AA2D937@mozilla.com> <CAOJ7v-2aXsQrwJ77+MsZ0cw-cx=VJTccFJwc9rxSFjdd+bCs-g@mail.gmail.com> <0E876BDE-C438-43AD-B87A-95894ADCBF8F@sn3rd.com> <574256E1-7AF4-4E25-9462-04B4B599C801@mozilla.com> <CAOJ7v-3uxT2fZdxxcz93TsSMFHaJCOURZnv=_aNiYo-enS3D9g@mail.gmail.com> <6DF5B202-803F-452B-B17E-5346F4C6FB4B@iii.ca> <CAOJ7v-1KHxmE+i0H5wJ68L3_-L=pcUiFwSz=9pTGybrr7V-5dQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/-2Tck99LCHDRItqyWQlJG4vOIQY>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 04:12:02 -0000

I reviewed the diff and I think it helps to clarify this.

Best
  Nils

> On Jun 3, 2018, at 20:48, Justin Uberti <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Agreed. Created https://github.com/juberti/draughts/pull/102 <https://github.com/juberti/draughts/pull/102> that adds a high-level discussion of enterprise TURN servers, hopefully enough to clarify the situation.
> 
> If you think "browser-provided TURN server" is a clearer term, I could use that instead.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:21 AM Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca <mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 11, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti=40google..com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the PR. I spent some time thinking about this and ultimately concluded that more significant changes to the document will be necessary if it is to prescribe how a browser-provided TURN server should be handled, essentially incorporating much of the guidance from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-return-02 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-return-02>
>> 
>> For example, candidates produced from the TURN server should not have raddr/rport set; interactions between the browser-provided and any application-provided TURN server need to be described; the question of whether local candidates should be provided needs to be considered.
>> 
>> As such, I see 3 paths forward here:
>> a) Leave the document as-is. While leaving some ambiguity on this topic, the eventual (hopefully) publication of RETURN should clarify things, at which point we can publish a -bis.
>> b) Discuss the general concept of browser-provided TURN servers, but mention that this is an area of further study, and give some guidance based on our current understanding. That is, explain how the existing modes would work in the presence of a browser-provided TURN server.
>> c) Restore the reference to RETURN and progress the RETURN doc.
>> 
>> Overall, I don't expect the mode recommendations to change in the presence of a browser- or network- provided TURN server, so I think any changes here will be almost entirely additive.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> I lean towards option B as it sounds like it meets our current needs and allows us to separate out the harder stuff to do later. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb