Re: [rtcweb] IP handling and mDNS: The issue with obtaining consent

I understand the sentiment here, but we're a standards body that designs
protocols, and our ability to impose vague requirements on implementation
user interfaces is limited at best.

I prefer to maintain the current text in the document regarding consent,
which was the result of extensive WG discussions.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:42 AM Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> since we were running out of time in the meeting, a supplement comment
> regarding the rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates draft and the plans for IP
> handling in general:
>
> I want to endorse the mDNS extension draft as I believe it is a
> significant step towards getting WebRTC out of the blocklist of all
> those privacy plugins for browsers.
>
> The draft states that the IP hiding technique should be applied to use
> cases where no consent has been requested and that obviously affects
> those use cases in a negative way. This is the first extension to the IP
> handling draft but it shows a direction which makes it reasonable to
> assume that "consent" vs. "no consent" will diverge further for privacy
> reasons. And that is something I *would* generally encourage...
>
> However, it's only fair to take a step back to ensure that all use cases
> can request user consent appropriately in order to escape those
> restrictions. I don't think we can ignore that this hasn't happened so
> far in browsers which all rely on the use of getUserMedia. That is not
> appropriate for media receive only or pure data use cases. Thus, I would
> like the IP handling document (or the extension draft) to require
> implementations to allow for consent requests in a neutral way.
>
> Cheers
> Lennart
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>