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

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Wed, 20 August 2014 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 E409D1A04A8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 W9i5a7vyfTnj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.mailhostbox.com (outbound.mailhostbox.com [162.222.225.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0EC1A03C8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.178.230.235]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 27B68648271; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:37:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1408552639; bh=ccYY7hRvfmJgcEAiXIHi5SG3BZQYqksz+mdZrsxHMi0=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GLWhEltOI6VEUeeUL88ZEco+kwnPwv1eeeZ8Ah5PqD3Zdj/Rj6I82AdzVfb48SgtZ WoBdroLp9bPZNyjhR+6HWDC5rzDy0n3S88kbkd2zQFEFD6eq6T+1pP211GiK6MUgL6 rMJYkat6cVcEfK3F2RmpiSoyGq0XVdahiQY1nHNg=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Harald Alvestrand' <harald@alvestrand.no>, rtcweb@ietf.org, muthu.arul@gmail.com
References: <CA+9kkMCZT1XW4LLaJ4Nq2DbrxD59cYnjLo5JXn9fjEb8pyamaQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D41CDC3@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAKz0y8zycsyr9m4BA=-8xOaWkU+Sog5Mbz7K-oN3woqi++mVzg@mail.gmail.com> <53F451CF.10705@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <53F451CF.10705@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:07:03 +0530
Message-ID: <001b01cfbc94$fccd5310$f667f930$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01CFBCC3.16858F10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac+8Spm9Uik209A/S7+YFgJPhCujvwARRaqQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020209.53F4CEBC.00C6, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.18.214.134
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/UUhSVoP2PFMRs3_1ViXVfEPwMCE
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: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:37:20 -0000

Hi Muthu,

 

I agree with Harald that WebRTC endpoint & WebRTC gateway may implement ice-lite and so, there is no need to send consent check. IIUC, the intention of the draft is to mention that Full ICE supporting WebRTC entities MUST support consent check. 

 

I think that the following changes will be sufficient for the below comment:

 

1)      WebRTC endpoint & WebRTC implementation replaced by WebRTC devices. Please note that WebRTC browser is a webrtc device but not the other way around. 

 

2)      Add the statement that  Full ICE supporting WebRTC entities MUST support consent freshness. This statements will be useful for WebRTC Endpoint or WebRTC gateway which supports Full ICE.

 

Thanks

Partha

 

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:14 PM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness

 

On 08/20/2014 06:09 AM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal wrote:

I believe draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness deals with the WebRTC browser. A WebRTC device (eg. a mobile phone) on the other hand, could run a WebRTC browser and a JS and perform consent. Similarly, a WebRTC endpoint (whatever that gets defined as) might also perform consent, while a WebRTC gateway might not, and how consent applies to those should get specified in the document(s) that define those requirements (note: the gateway referred to in draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness is any SIP gateway).


Note: In terms of conformance requirements, "might" and "might not" are completely equivalent (2119 style: MAY - there is no MAY NOT).




 

So, draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness should just replace WebRTC endpoint and WebRTC implementation with WebRTC browser, IMHO.

 

Muthu

 

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi,

 

The draft says:

 

“WebRTC endpoints are required to support full ICE as specified in

                section 3.4 of [I-D.

​ ​

ietf-rtcweb-transports].  However, when WebRTC 

                endpoints interwork with other endpoints that support only ICE-lite

                (e.g., gateways) those endpoints will not generate consent checks,

                but just respond to consent checks they receive.”

 

The draft also talks about “WebRTC implementations” and “WebRTC browsers”.

 

We need to make sure that the terminology is aligned with draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview (for example, 

​ ​

draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview does not talk about “WebRTC endpoints”), which also may be impacted based on the outcome of the current terminology/gateway discussion. 

 

Regards,

 

Christer

 

 

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: 14. elokuuta 2014 18:10
To: rtcweb@ietf.org; Sean Turner; Cullen Jennings
Subject: [rtcweb] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness

 

This starts a WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness (available at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness/).  Please review the document and send comments to the list by September 10, 2014.

thanks,

Ted Hardie


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

 






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






-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.