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

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell said:

"So it's all a bit of a fig leaf IMO."

[BA] Correct me if I'm missing something, but there are a class of abusive
applications that don't even pretend to support realtime communications and
don't call getUserMedia (probably so as not to give the user an inkling of
what they are up to).

So while there is some leeway to argue about the meaning of "consent" for
an application that actually utilizes the WebRTC APIs for communications
between browsers, there are a class of abusive applications that don't
fulfill even the most liberal definition of "consent".

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 07/03/18 22:35, Justin Uberti wrote:
> >>> In addition, while gUM consent is given as an example, it is not
> >> normative.
> >>>    Mode 1 MUST only be used when user consent has been provided.  The
> >>>    details of this consent are left to the implementation; one
> potential
> >>>    mechanism is to tie this consent to getUserMedia consent.
> >> Sure. OTOH, IIUC, that is what's done in web browsers so it kind
> >> of really is normative, in practice. Again, apologies if there
> >> are other things done in browsers.
> >>
> > I believe that the Brave browser uses Mode 4 in its private browsing
> mode.
> > https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/issues/260
>
> Interesting, didn't know that and good to see.
>
> OTOH, still the vast majority of web browsers will I assume
> do mode 1 for the vast majority of webrtc calls.
>
> So it's a bit of a fig leaf IMO.
>
> S.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>