IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] What is consent?

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 12 September 2012 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 98F6621F84EF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oYlYna6xGWkv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s21.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s21.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC4D21F84EE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU401-EAS382 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s21.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:27:47 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [173.167.136.97]
X-EIP: [xOSGgiZ6DfgmkM3FqHjN8n1mvdp43Nnp]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU401-EAS3820748E547AD9D27E1220893920@phx.gbl>
References: <CABkgnnXAPZ5BN=CUwYdEpHKbCLBxctqpONL==QWf_WwgrNEK_A@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNnoQwJu1MYSW=6q6pkrgXSPSUtVyOsngrPP6b8GaegdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUNhka8OJsiNCV5iOvU_cGyvt_y8=DN6qnud3Xr-dy1iQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNddHgHnkZ5b2N4i-np3WuY51f6WHkBdT5mHBsieLMDow@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-DS48211D4056CB291285DD4393930@phx.gbl> <08c301cd9076$a2405c40$e6c114c0$@com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-AA5F853A-AEA5-47AE-9931-8F43B1FFB1BD"
In-Reply-To: <08c301cd9076$a2405c40$e6c114c0$@com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:33:58 -0500
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2012 03:27:47.0700 (UTC) FILETIME=[94A5CB40:01CD9096]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] What is consent?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 12 Sep 2012 03:27:48 -0000

>> Dan Wing said:
> 
> For ICE Mobility (draft-wing-mmusic-ice-mobility), we might want to 
> keep other candidates available, but inactive.  Over those other
> candidates we would not signal USE-CANDIDATE, but we would want to
> be able to switch to the other candidate as quickly as possible
> (ideally, switch over immediately).  Similar considerations might 
> apply to multipath RTP (draft-singh-avtcore-mprtp), too.
> 
> -d

[BA] My question is whether the browser has a legitimate reason to send media to a destination that is not part of a valid pair for which the nominated flag is set to true, as per RFC 5245 Section 7.1.3.2.4.  For mobility you can still signal USE-CANDIDATE but not use the pair if another pair had higher priority.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email