Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:22 AM Nils Ohlmeier <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While I understand the arguments against adding more mode I still think
> the paragraph describing Mode 4 is missing details and causes confusion
> among implementers:
>
> - It is not clear if the word “proxy” refers to a HTTP proxy or a TURN
> server.
>
> This can easily be improved by replacing the word “proxy” with “HTTP
> proxy” everywhere in the Mode 4 paragraph.
>

The proxy doesn't need to be a HTTP proxy; it could be a SOCKS or RETURN
proxy (SOCKS is specifically noted in the para).

>
> - It is unclear how an implementation should behave in the absence of such
> a proxy.
>
> I would suggest to add a sentence the implementation should not hand out
> any candidates in the absence of a HTTP proxy.
>

This is a fair point. However, my take is that the behavior should be the
same as Mode 3 in this case, as the web server already sees the client IP.
I could add a sentence to make this super clear.