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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 07 March 2018 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 F15B612D872 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:12:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 Yc5ujOMcg5je for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 747F912D94C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id B454ABE74; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 20:12:55 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PO4vUhurNJw4; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 20:12:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.138] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFC01BE73; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 20:12:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1520453571; bh=bnVej/iPj51OSnplRDmPOHUTISOAx0cCrrmSX6yZKu8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=y9iIZC+qVNhlXLoqRXTntUSNKscJulcFWX4xkOmywLqudRCGq89VZuASoz4RibzjX UMDlk/9tWoiipuojzEUXiuOVDsK04eoYL1XnS0APGOgUy5Zj65+v72GNYPdOq+1pSG u/VSCNaHZ0hRfIRnUcsZVmYQXtdNAMwY9f0AmY8g=
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <1D5B431C-801E-4F8C-8026-6BCBB72FF478@sn3rd.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <63282b84-4493-3fcb-a95f-4afe17d96bb6@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 20:12:50 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1D5B431C-801E-4F8C-8026-6BCBB72FF478@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="P2778vMeenpQXy48FTGi6BkytwlHrid32"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Fv3m9u4xHILlwS9bcXklsGBG6PI>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 07 Mar 2018 20:13:00 -0000

Hiya,

On 07/03/18 19:49, Sean Turner wrote:
> All,
> 
> This is the WGLC for the "WebRTC IP Address Handling Requirements”
> draft available @
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling/.
> Please review the draft and send your comments to this list by
> 2359UTC on 30 March 30 2017.

I've raised this previously, so this is, I guess, mostly just
for the record, and I'll likely still be in the rough...

I continue to think it is a bad idea to use the term "consent"
at all, and especially coupled with getUserMedia and with mode
1 having a MUST for using all interfaces based on what I think
is such a bogus concept. There is, IMO, no valid way in which a
person can fairly be considered to have consented to any of this.
I think entwining IETF specifications in the tangled web of web
"consent" (so called) is going in exactly the wrong direction.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Thanks, C/T/S _______________________________________________ rtcweb
> mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>