Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness

Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Mon, 25 August 2014 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4444E1A8999 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Kr3aRIQU9T1T for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4576B1A899A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so13250817wgh.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5qIGrgrVGDj/R6siIyxBtEBXgJ9IlH7jf45FiR3XWy0=; b=vjSOJKv9MD0KWQVzo7uLpueevteoe0hRMSBIYtt0FCGchc1cdK9cbpB++unUJ4yFbW i7qcLsLLy3UQ4sJ07poJ3kaVEehx+PIuyOZ7ZNVsCtXpvOW355dsyDI8LwHIGSSpxFUX M2ClqwiKxYwDn7YQ1ZZywNcl011leV/nk/06ZMiNWphWEyp7QoDx+pXH9AciL++Z9gr/ OFJKzD1EuTn3Y2fYkPf/95bXoqoRQyEdmjUbVYEyP5yRBI5N8kIRpAWloHnqFl+eYFW+ k6kLPBSUUd1yZ+QNfgrUvORVRVzUtzIkIrRod4sm7gvYF69r1flFQg0o6Uh4gF62suXN ilZQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.93.104 with SMTP id ct8mr15725037wib.30.1408978329918; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.197.168 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxs9=YPZGUzQxHkuP8KQA6iV_ntJ8PWKtyJa9tioMhBBuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKz0y8ws+ARTZaVRpMBcRc_mmc_8cEHdurt=nQ39xdSwtNPPRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxs9=YPZGUzQxHkuP8KQA6iV_ntJ8PWKtyJa9tioMhBBuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:22:09 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8xDcFtLFDPGBopJ5QNHh21TSxvVcEuSKRPhL6rJUqf7uQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c08ead9e32705017554ef"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/9OSh0PkFWEI1k0t2zcDavzjdhf0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Aug 2014 14:52:14 -0000

Agree.

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <
> muthu.arul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An ICE-lite entity by definition doesn't generate STUN requests which
>> means it doesn't perform consent freshness as described in the draft. If it
>> does, it is not a ICE-lite entity. You have only two types of entities to
>> interop test with. I don't see any use of specifying a MUST NOT for
>> ICE-lite.
>>
>>
>>
> This is exactly what I am saying. All full ICE end points for WebRTC must
> implement consent freshness. We should not specify consent freshness for
> ICE-lite (as it is not specified right now), and we should not define a
> special type of end points which will not send consent freshness requests
> just because they are ICE-lite (since they already cannot send it).
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>