[rtcweb] consent freshness and ICE-lite

["Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <[e-mail]>]

Sections 4.2, 4.4 and 5.3 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-03.txt have text that seems to be contradictory.  In particular, 5.3 requires support of ICE-lite at server gateways but each endpoint is described as sending ICE binding requests for ICE consent verification in 4.2 (which is it?).  4.4 also requires RTCWeb implementations to perform periodic binding requests to verify consent freshness.  Is a server gateway an RTCWeb implementation subject to this requirement?  I thought that one of the reasons the WG decided to use binding requests instead of binding indications to allow bilateral consent initiated by a single endpoint (in particular, so that an RTCWeb browser could interoperate with either a server gateway implementing ICE-lite or a non-RTCWeb endpoint not implementing the RTCWeb consent freshness procedures in such a way that only the RTCWeb browser needed to send periodic binding requests to maintain bilateral consent freshness).



Does a binding request provide unilateral or bilateral consent verification/freshness?



Is a server gateway implementing ICE-lite required to send ICE binding requests anyway for consent verification and/or consent freshness, or is it sufficient for such an implementation to indicate its own consent by just responding to received binding requests?



Do we care about compatibility with ICE compliant endpoints that do not use binding requests for consent freshness?



Does a browser treat a response to a binding request the same as a received binding request for consent freshness?



It would be helpful to have clear answers to these questions in the security architecture document.



Thanks,

Richard Ejzak