IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@unify.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 23C411A9055 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 5iKvgUY2kbMz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx12.unify.com (mx12.unify.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFC51B2BB5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by mx12.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id 4B53923F050A; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:11:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.173]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:10:50 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return
Thread-Index: AQHQZ9h65G6c7Ot4pUWLnhdCd7FOUZ0vL/rw
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:10:49 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E70B481@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <9DA8307B-263C-4951-A55C-36B42D27C08B@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9DA8307B-263C-4951-A55C-36B42D27C08B@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/SEz3IxEH38uOzXlDtmDqalBLsx0>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:11:35 -0000

On: 26 March 2015 10:20 Cullen Jennings Wrote:
> 
> I'd like to point out that the combination of ietf-tram-turn-server-
> discovery and draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return allow any network you are
> connected to more or less MITM your media and do things like rate limit
> it, generate analytics on who you are talking to, force your traffic
> through an intermediary that is in a  different legal jurisdiction and
> so on.
> 

I don't see any new issues that are caused by this draft it is just suggesting that the same is done for WebRTC Media as is already done for HTTP(S) but using a TURN proxy which is optimized to handle media. 

We set the requirement in RFC 7478 (Requirement F20) requires that WebRTC handles this scenario and this solution is the only one we have on the table for this and provides a solution to the privacy concerns (IP Address leaks) with regard to deploying a network specific proxy.


> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email