Re: [rtcweb] Call for review

westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Thu, 07 March 2019 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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 C50F4130EF2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 01:07:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bSZM87__kv5Z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 01:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001-out2.apm-internet.net (smtp001-out2.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0AD130F17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 01:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 37103 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2019 09:07:14 -0000
X-APM-Authkey: 255286/0(159927/0) 213
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 7 Mar 2019 09:07:14 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6259E18A0614; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:07:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra003.verygoodemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id JWbglLUjhh5r; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:07:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [192.67.4.84] (unknown [192.67.4.84]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3319218A04EC; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:07:14 +0000 (GMT)
From: westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Message-Id: <47BAABBF-E762-4DE6-A3FD-AB27A48FFCA9@westhawk.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B708A6ED-06FF-4E0E-ABF2-C5C8BF5505D0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:07:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3GpEOdWgDDM2EQt_RYyB4=O-qsDpHRuGMGGbpDUXwpdA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBEzEFtRyvApTs9p4AvixMFO0Fe-Z+Wk5mh09ZxY_4uOQ@mail.gmail.com> <3AAE140F-F6BC-4C5F-A5AF-DE81A8876C21@westhawk.co.uk> <CAOJ7v-3YE7xFGoP21R46Ok5nrMK1qkWRQ63kBCuuhHqkAmRs6Q@mail.gmail.com> <E47BF5F9-0CF4-4D0D-A273-A35893191D02@westhawk.co.uk> <CAOJ7v-3GpEOdWgDDM2EQt_RYyB4=O-qsDpHRuGMGGbpDUXwpdA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/1mgBCWtEJEG2tNnoqG-SisooxKI>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for review
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 09:07:21 -0000


> On 6 Mar 2019, at 23:55, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:11 AM westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk <mailto:thp@westhawk.co.uk>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 03:34, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com <mailto:juberti@google.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> We'll always mask any local addresses with mDNS, since we don't know if they're public or not. We will also provide a srflx candidate with the actual address should STUN tell us that information.
> 
> So the ‘always’ should be conditional on how the addresses are ‘found’?
> Perhaps a definition of Local IP addresses would help:
> “Local IP addresses means addresses discovered by interrogating the operating system for
> a list of available interfaces and their associated IP addresses”  
> 
> Plus a clarification that “these rules do not apply to addresses that are subsequently found via
> STUN or ICE - note that this may cause an address to be listed twice - once as a host candidate with a masked mdns
> and a second time with it’s IP address as a reflex candidate”
> 
> Perhaps this could be simplified by simply referring to 'host' IP addresses, where 'host' has the same meaning (i.e. local interface) as in ICE. 

Yep, that is probably clearer.

> 
> (I’ve a feeling there is section of the ICE RFC that talks about eliminating reflex candidates that duplicate host candidates 
> but can’t find it)
> 
> There is, but I content it does not apply here, since these srflx candidates will contain a different (non-hostname) address.

Yep, but I think it might be worth a clarification note in this document - unless it is clear to everyone else that the de-dupe is done by host name not by underlying address. - Essentially this is a clarification on what order the processing is done across multiple RFCs.

T.