IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Fri, 22 August 2014 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 CF6F31A0413 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 BP11IPqC_Kct for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9724D1A03F6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so10470625wiv.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UhTkfqAsCFr+Ju6DyaNCXlGplsINGQq5A4O4oViUhgA=; b=f4xBdLm9LmRNwO8Ti0qCaWw50V1mH+jg6BUvWWo9Vr5H995tg/ReUr3RLx1dk4qIkX E0mDTuQo74kBFPui+Y3kM+txi5YU9sEwfYgBu8uiBzkcwreDW04a0PUpLYsuGQeRZsvW EEuyjgXQCA2rYkx/GPrLPqSeSpGzcWsQH8sUBWF5Tw4xALegc4UHke5OZORIOgqGk5By q5cNVC1yvdJbWpBGJ1IIb5MpukIwddEyabjogDvHONE5E7Q09RLfJ4w1IeTbPqOLw510 BX6pknxj7mnWTeYFXYbORpSVCK3VSvWBrzvW4ZuunWe0vKAGQjMBwtDzHSmQCoW6Et+8 CbrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnzPrnNG7NPFhgP0YkvbQQuVOS6uhlwRc6R4q75Dtz9gGc/6zlWVedZItLRugUUwwdF/aoZ
X-Received: by 10.181.13.175 with SMTP id ez15mr18185409wid.59.1408725566242; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mw4sm32834220wic.20.2014.08.22.09.39.25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k48so10863974wev.41 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.38.84 with SMTP id e20mr11524162wik.43.1408725565099; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.20.7 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E526CA4@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CA+9kkMCZT1XW4LLaJ4Nq2DbrxD59cYnjLo5JXn9fjEb8pyamaQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D41CDC3@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAKz0y8zycsyr9m4BA=-8xOaWkU+Sog5Mbz7K-oN3woqi++mVzg@mail.gmail.com> <53F451CF.10705@alvestrand.no> <001b01cfbc94$fccd5310$f667f930$@co.in> <CAKz0y8zNM3rc3XC6JqrK+d4hXiT5TomhNM+W2twg0+-83-pFow@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUnfB5bskH4zWRfBMdHbSoqftV5Fo_GEXoLt9XCH9Tt_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxsT9Vdm0=tjk9WsLAH4ekbAizgyjm--168TrOf8UAYGZw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXUpibu8kWYmbJJJT2J3RNGXFV8LbceLijgG0U-pGY2xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKz0y8z_oBf2efavfOLgzqE1R8sZstefZ1tvwwJLkhRskXZERQ@mail.gmail.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E526CA4@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:39:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvGs3nBR-wPjKRiayoAE6s7-6kRz4M=W7NMrUNa0BSSJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f643366e4d87405013a7a59"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/RiPt112laiF58uFMFt3dJyuwq5g
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness
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: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:39:30 -0000

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) <
Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

>  >WebRTC browser - MUST
>
> >WebRTC devide - SHOULD
>
> >Other RTP entities (including WebRTC gateway) - MAY
>
>
What I still do not understand, is why a full ICE end point would not send
consent messages? What is the reason for this? The security and operational
benefits of this are clear and the incremental work in implementing consent
is minimal.

Also, in what circumstances would ICE-lite end point ever send consent?
Where is this even defined? Also, if you are implementing sending STUN
messages, why would you not implement the full ICE end point? Once
implementation of sending and processing responses to STUN consent messages
is done, incremental work to implement full ICE is minimal.

And finally, what does any of this have to do with type of WebRTC end
point? Browsers and devices must implement full ICE and thus must implement
consent. Other RTP endpoints, may implement ICE-lite and skip consent, but
ideally should implement full ICE and consent. I also believe all of this
is already in the specification.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email