IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 03 August 2016 16:04 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 9404212D7A8; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.588 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-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 xIEJRLp1mg07; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
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 4B8E712D7A3; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA520BE4C; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:02:25 +0100 (IST)
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 Plg4Wk3Q_7Yj; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:02:25 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 487F0BE3F; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:02:25 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1470240145; bh=eSb930LUZg7EVG5PkckSyxwPehtWonHf8Q41/hppmPE=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=2Ip3+eOEJrKUzKAtTl+sjNkox/a7F55g/X/7WZCe06zjCT5ErTLc3sebHHCkpRjJw KtF5adGzFL1c3ZyA/tBI3KptkICVeYNQipsWlfeDQL9JoF1csxQ5Evx3e1aTK9rCBt KXj+OLM8BkDhAGd+PQwQG2QTl63yPuQ6nsWUu4JQ=
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160803145129.6144.18245.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <57A2104F.1010504@alvestrand.no> <ac2f178e-0688-ce92-9a13-f1894b45caf2@cs.tcd.ie> <57A2145E.9020204@alvestrand.no>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <88f81543-02ef-ff1d-c83f-665c33521378@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 17:02:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57A2145E.9020204@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms070808090302060305010204"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/T1pasBrNcBB-HO5m8IWnxodMVvg>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 03 Aug 2016 16:04:53 -0000


On 03/08/16 16:57, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> You can also get call duration by setting a trigger on a
> PeerConnection's "onstatechange" handler and firing off a query to
> "trackserver.net" inside that handler once the state goes to "closed".

Ah - good point. I don't recall seeing that mentioned in any of
the webrtc stuff I've scanned, but then maybe it's obvious if
one has coded this stuff up. (I've clearly not:-)

> I may have overlooked it, but I don't see the new attack.

And seems to me like you're correct. I've cleared.

Thanks,
S.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status