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

[Nils Ohlmeier <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 19, 2018, at 16:29, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:22 AM Nils Ohlmeier <[e-mail] <mailto:[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).

Fair enough.

> 
> - 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.

I think that would help.
Although I’m wondering if your assumption is correct here if the user is using a tunneling VPN, e.g. IPSEC or something which is not just a simple HTTP proxy. Then I could see in edge cases the HTTP traffic tacking a different path then your STUN packets. But I think it’s probably okay to ignore that edge case.

Best
  Nils Ohlmeier