IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Sun, 15 April 2018 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 C741D127876 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 zbl66n6qa1KT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D805C1270B4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id x204so8057969vkd.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J8iIjZozVkCw+7lBUpLzNxTZ6AxdaY0TASDZ4BQTgz8=; b=cRmMpQV4AisIBQPD+Kn3UAbZezM4xE4I03DRV8wN1oPgj5zcIB9S51a3AW2Tz/Mb4V wiD7Z4n2SFd+iwWChiVi/k8ig7ezZ6w9uv2oaU6iMCRXXLssdCsZVrwvKVJ30+Vkq3oT OyC58oNv81sP8mRyG+qBBGwJGfJXgtgUWaYqNM8uFPfRoZJAtDCCnPd+mbWoh9sYH3ET So5l/8rruadXWxV9g2SCbZsf684Y7MnbA52fc34GlW3NIY/dwvY6GVJf/qv7jHW3VAgb mnm3okTMINNRcamIewTecyORaViAagrMRVGyAHrD7krVZxHjqEwmuXg61XpRcg1/Gnph qn4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J8iIjZozVkCw+7lBUpLzNxTZ6AxdaY0TASDZ4BQTgz8=; b=O+VRVy8xT9neTgclWRhcyzI623fPSdJds+SsSPDuW3rGxCgVnd9KTqN1nrjEDun1eX KbXbzab53OEUNyUO9sMWuAmTe0PbvsWv24REK4Xzn/pcWQaz/FPI3D4UkDr3NWACrbM+ Tu7q5/3mmn3a5AOugKfmOO0NZYH7L1uVkNvKSkpdIKuJEwazRsMm1f0KKHkuk0ii7TqA ZUi4Ech3yhP6TPI4VozkjPtZtYJYIWEaUJCIrXZFrWm0cm+jeNbr/MDpHpwJTdKrFa1G AgQi2cw3Hd4X+GZCywIf3amzVrLqOnPc4Jn5JLjNPRpBzLlBc4WbWUZm3TDZU3c1JHB1 H48Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAmBk+mhp3ow6DNTTOCjzBbyiCO3If9WjdZcfpmqH9EKMTw+0BU RoGv1lYUzjGYF+Q8kgA8eZl3hMCBGrfMkJkh7nR4NA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48J/ZLhW7DeLtdoHW+W2fxWy54AfHQfcRgCO7sXRVnGB8wxcMYEJyd1JKBMHbkjIj5WgIu3qBlmHuzHZLFdbdc=
X-Received: by 10.31.252.68 with SMTP id a65mr9354506vki.78.1523807478360; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1D5B431C-801E-4F8C-8026-6BCBB72FF478@sn3rd.com> <63282b84-4493-3fcb-a95f-4afe17d96bb6@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOJ7v-1gTq+EEjb+-q-T-pABBW--rpNGegoj_d2_7f7AKGksCA@mail.gmail.com> <403713b4-31d4-9085-d639-d3f60935ed5a@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOJ7v-0ED-FK=JmSxBJYfM=PCdgY6kmbiq6aFLcP7OXugG07EA@mail.gmail.com> <e6938f7d-542d-736b-0a3d-9269d7dd06e5@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOW+2dv1ORz2tEkgDTvdM1DtgyOdgXqKU30T4QhLAp1NT+rirg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0tCcg3FdzyfSJ6Y3JaH-TivFf-Sey6+tD8BANJKsjqtQ@mail.gmail.com> <1fceb3c4-35f3-34f7-de1d-79d5805e6d22@gmail.com> <9517D601-D3E8-46E1-94E5-7EC29FD6319B@sn3rd.com> <b5d323ac-2205-2aee-05c9-f270e80215f5@gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0+hr-NddbLCwgjkfyEFEzoLYW8BcE5OYZ+HUiqDRnarg@mail.gmail.com> <0dee004d-159a-a9be-a0b8-ecbfd4204d72@gmail.com> <06252a76-f12e-4d8d-4a07-5240a7605bce@gmail.com> <914e0220-e3cc-00d7-0925-e5deb8b07e75@nostrum.com> <AFDFD3F3-4798-4716-B26C-A67457BF2C65@sn3rd.com> <e5e2a517-d29a-117c-ab79-6f01fa62b843@gmail.com> <20180412144158.44733ac7@lminiero> <b767da79-7678-2a1c-ecb0-46a9a3bd9129@gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2gmxpsGp=25pcJmnkYmipZdCFOqU4nLtAVSznLsZo9rQ@mail.gmail.com> <4902F7BF-0D20-4EA6-9E78-D22C90EFCE22@westhawk.co.uk> <CAOJ7v-3NsqD6pq-kkMw81+2n_D8qf558CKeCE76ZypyxwCgs9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2NJ1vhVUerZ1cn8MP9hD_vgAYBurjeQKMx76Aa_U=n=Q@mail.gmail.com> <A8B32C11-30BD-4DA8-9BAB-FA26747BFF66@westhawk.co.uk> <CAOJ7v-0VNCjGdhtz56jwwksBcfPk=9wuxfMgwi8mq7ViFyWpuw@mail.gmail.com> <DDEE408B-B49E-465E-B17B-C2813AF4F2F4@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <DDEE408B-B49E-465E-B17B-C2813AF4F2F4@westhawk.co.uk>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:51:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-26f1hrujtegK6_U50E0MZPy5zmf0yDUWBY5oqrKQmGQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14c6cc74d1660569e513b1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/XwhUC3WuJ_YcG9i3rKuceAyeMg4>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:51:22 -0000

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:34 AM westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On 15 Apr 2018, at 17:12, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>> An example of this may be an LTE phone that has a ‘data bearer channel’
>> and a ‘media bearer channel’ - the billing routability and QoS behaviour of
>> these
>> two interfaces will be different. I could imagine that a carrier app
>> might want to use the media bearer for a voice call. (Sorry for my 3GPP
>>  semi-ignorance).
>>
>
> I don't think this is relevant to this discussion; since this isn't
> surfaced upwards as different interfaces to the OS, any behavior here is
> the same as you would get in Mode 2 when using the cellular interface.
>
>
> That’s not the impression I got from this CCC talk
> https://events.ccc.de/congress/2015/Fahrplan/system/event_attachments/attachments/000/002/829/original/2015.12.28_CCC_Dissecting_VoLTE.pdf
>
> One of the slides explicitly shows 2 interfaces surfaced to the ifconfig
> in linux busybox.
> I realise that these slides are a couple of years old, but I doubt VoLTE
> has changed much in that time. (I’m still semi-ignorant on 3gpp )
>

Yes, I see what you mean. It seems like the bearer is intended to be locked
down to VoLTE traffic - but this may not always be happening yet in
practice (although this issue was reported to Google and may have been
fixed in a recent version of Android). Regardless, I would still contend
that selecting a specific bearer for WebRTC traffic is outside of our
current remit.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email