Re: [rtcweb] Call for review

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Thu, 07 March 2019 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96922130E82 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:47:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 Zk5o1wAK-PtI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x130.google.com (mail-it1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (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 2619C12DF71 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x130.google.com with SMTP id z124so18771325itc.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 15:47:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4Ernwo/htdca0kSo4aIFgSOHkYSurgMPajWk3kxMy+E=; b=ZKr5V1aHsExznhOi1IOPRbhq5Rhi5NJvarRVX5nChopIRlb+Ar1V2lJt05/IH7XPeH w6ND2Q7ezNWBAU+rJFSizcrAIy8scebxuxHb/1rffGulgHe9/TWp5O52b7kAHLG9/r8E pKSayZt+31YeKL1m6DJ30uUoa3MKiB3JJjvIzh6pVYURqifUse4Elx6Ym2LwRcPom3yN 8L1cwXUvkl8jamPlSEtMIV1xFWb6kUykES3YWGI7BJBVMOWe63PIDEdYH3ajDysDfXYP WqpfGqc5g+pcTum16r0mJH9VNRkQn6Ik4l9cJMoH1nQI48TuEqQvg+HkOi2NVZTl/Iwi Pcfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4Ernwo/htdca0kSo4aIFgSOHkYSurgMPajWk3kxMy+E=; b=W3YK83P6R/PWOceUlsAN9NomzDBm+KuhXaimZlcdYk4EBc2xYMlF6c+i2S+HHN0y8a +fceZBaYivRsAyhGbTvSio7t3d+nndUNxa9/iyzHjM54tA7BRXDdYKD7y9Ta+UqbYbTM Qxy63I2//NKaGf41qLC8hE4ye43iGjJQfWXxBj5l26Ebkxvgzh08jKCpIJaUUNMJsmGd XLJ1iLZgx74tUhhfELW1eBcQMGiwVA6+5/N5aJp9sdUoxrm+1GTtkXeqRDAV1v4iCMgp d7pPjJCDKAs7N0voGlaePLTJ0iyChjVqMpnn0Bdi5wEnbfwA8OxxvR3WfRoeMCiGt5Vk KejA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWL73GGK/lq4ylI1dePpFjTz5bWmFe7251T7f/+0IE1WwPtnzrp PCKZcreXOVCDmAZ5703eredBgBi6ApVKchuLm33crA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwTJ8yokDkrw/Z24/RHdYw4K5Rj/UjvSvSwjtdQHtuNAz4ODj7ZFajCTkQeEmPxXYpCioaw2TvE5iCG/EzNT10=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:85ec:: with SMTP id d99mr507715jai.116.1552002462145; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 15:47:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+9kkMBEzEFtRyvApTs9p4AvixMFO0Fe-Z+Wk5mh09ZxY_4uOQ@mail.gmail.com> <3AAE140F-F6BC-4C5F-A5AF-DE81A8876C21@westhawk.co.uk> <CAOJ7v-3YE7xFGoP21R46Ok5nrMK1qkWRQ63kBCuuhHqkAmRs6Q@mail.gmail.com> <E47BF5F9-0CF4-4D0D-A273-A35893191D02@westhawk.co.uk> <CAOJ7v-3GpEOdWgDDM2EQt_RYyB4=O-qsDpHRuGMGGbpDUXwpdA@mail.gmail.com> <47BAABBF-E762-4DE6-A3FD-AB27A48FFCA9@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <47BAABBF-E762-4DE6-A3FD-AB27A48FFCA9@westhawk.co.uk>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:47:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0umfSaEF6pYgWm1=nntLWN29EN1ApDQ73v8FDvVdvQ2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072c492058389bb99"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/EXLsEOVfe8rMYfjd-yoKZbkU-KE>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for review
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 23:47:46 -0000

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:07 AM westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>; wrote:

>
>
> On 6 Mar 2019, at 23:55, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:11 AM westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>; wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 03:34, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> So the ‘always’ should be conditional on how the addresses are ‘found’?
>> Perhaps a definition of Local IP addresses would help:
>> “Local IP addresses means addresses discovered by interrogating the
>> operating system for
>> a list of available interfaces and their associated IP addresses”
>>
>
>> Plus a clarification that “these rules do not apply to addresses that are
>> subsequently found via
>> STUN or ICE - note that this may cause an address to be listed twice -
>> once as a host candidate with a masked mdns
>> and a second time with it’s IP address as a reflex candidate”
>>
>
> Perhaps this could be simplified by simply referring to 'host' IP
> addresses, where 'host' has the same meaning (i.e. local interface) as in
> ICE.
>
>
> Yep, that is probably clearer.
>
>
>> (I’ve a feeling there is section of the ICE RFC that talks about
>> eliminating reflex candidates that duplicate host candidates
>> but can’t find it)
>>
>
> There is, but I content it does not apply here, since these srflx
> candidates will contain a different (non-hostname) address.
>
>
> Yep, but I think it might be worth a clarification note in this document -
> unless it is clear to everyone else that the de-dupe is done by host name
> not by underlying address. - Essentially this is a clarification on what
> order the processing is done across multiple RFCs.
>
> That's reasonable. We'll add a note to this effect in the main
rtcweb-mdns-candidates document.
https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/mdns-ice-candidates/issues/105