IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 B1CF11ADFEF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:31:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Z6d9Tj9L2Waw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s35.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s35.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243941AE042 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W114 ([65.55.111.135]) by blu0-omc4-s35.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:31:37 -0800
X-TMN: [qCBCU4g6b20WjyebQofFaq47iqoXxaRuSCXy+VT7i9A=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W11416B2C0D42888C078A7F493E60@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_e9a2da2e-d196-489f-ab77-703f07e32921_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:31:37 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVpikDFwzfc=6CnHDOb6rmoe5-54AdYPyrbRvU34Epfig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CEAB0083.6FBE3%rmohanr@cisco.com>, <5285E318.3090006@ericsson.com>, <BLU169-W10885AF717BCBB60830502093E60@phx.gbl>, <CABkgnnVpikDFwzfc=6CnHDOb6rmoe5-54AdYPyrbRvU34Epfig@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2013 18:31:37.0393 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF57C210:01CEE61E]
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 20 Nov 2013 18:31:45 -0000

> I think that it's at least in good enough shape to put up for wider discussion.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rtcweb-consent-00
> 
> Overall, I think that this is cleaner.  The main advantage is that any
> authenticated data counts toward refreshing consent.  That means zero
> overhead in many common cases.

[BA] I have to agree that it is worth discussing, particularly given the potential for zero additional overhead.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email