IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 05 August 2015 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 BA54E1B31FC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 bIYOaWLcRWaa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F6B01B31FD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so76007473wib.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=69VGBoY1PHVbcW0xwqQn87r7KRT5GyKuYs98slcJIZI=; b=FKlabCNeLXiXFOoVbLmVFCuDrUgcikqDjhHnBg0P0OfYym6XUbwG/SmaAYSvpINlF2 AWLpELvoqNfFbpCogoEURNC59g2LUP1VHx+LRy9dEmELy9Yo+haP6yGm882nxVfmoCzI hYqF/s3z/Lnxgj5d9J2qtJAb9cgiVRtMwmO2+TtC6ypCTSZ6w/icH5WmxI7M6rUzoZQP UPA9rx78NePrZIULVNcEe3Ax1homV9cwqB7eyHFcv7FEuG+3EpRPaTJm38LBYVTokoe1 q+oLS/J1zysXoKu8w7jAu3bKpQLV4P5vxvP67GXVOxEUXmroFIO35V6m8HWELftJriyq 6vmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnTCC98wkJj1F6AaV4EnBhfLk/yozJWESiuhEjb7RPww4Y7b96quqPnE/2rM/nJzfIT+6h5
X-Received: by 10.194.133.73 with SMTP id pa9mr21759847wjb.148.1438794126696; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.85.86 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55C23FFD.8070201@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20150805130607.20844.70680.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B348E9691@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <55C23FFD.8070201@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:01:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM=h0cL6uK=NbodUhCMmGMBEChKp0n3JSeK-D=JPWC30g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e011771a9d3bc7a051c935c0e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/CPuF4Qksizgh9yT1MvhUMeLIw80>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.shepherd@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.ad@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: <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: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 17:02:13 -0000

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> On 05/08/15 14:22, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> >> (2) WebRTC does not require STUN or TURN servers for some calls,
> >> even if it does for many. Why is it ok to require such a server be
> >> present in all calls (which I think this means) espcially when that
> >> means exposing additional meta-data (calling parties in a case
> >> where the servers weren't needed and call duration in all cases) to
> >> those servers when that is not always necessary?
> >
> > Could you please refer to the text which you think mandates STUN or
> > TURN servers?
>
> Sure, I think there were a couple of places, but I'd have to
> track 'em down. I'll try update the ballot with that if it
> turns out to be needed. (Be tomorrow before I get to that,
> sorry.)
>
> >
> > If there are no NATs, the STUN requests can be sent between the
> > endpoints, without STUN or TURN servers.
>
> Really - so browsers will be able to act like a STUN server or
> something? I didn't know that. Where's that described?


ICE uses STUN in three ways:

1. For address discovery
2. To talk to TURN servers (TURN is based on STUN)
3. For ICE connectivity checks.

Christer is referring to #3.

-Ekr


> S.
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email