Re: [rtcweb] Call for review

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.

Agree though we should be consistent on terminology, will look into what
the best option is there.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:40 PM westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:

> On first reading it seems like there might be a conflation of private IP
> addresses and local IP addresses.
> the [ip-handling] document uses the term 'Private local IP addresses’
> where as this document
> uses "private IP addresses” in the introduction but then uses "The local
> IPv4 address” without any
> explanation (I can find) of the difference.
>
> Surely this would mean that a standalone device (say a public kiosk)
> assigned a
> single routable public IP would mask that address with mdns.
>
> Tim.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Mar 2019, at 20:22, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > draft-uberti-ip-handling-ex-mdns is a very short draft describing two
> new modes  related to draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling using bits of
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates.
> >
> > The chairs would like to ask for a couple of reviews; given that it is
> four pages long, we are hopeful that it will not take much time.
> >
> > Please send your review to the list,
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Ted
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>