IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] IP handling and mDNS: The issue with obtaining consent

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Fri, 09 November 2018 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 4A0501286E3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:48:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 wsOjiipJIwEu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:48:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92d.google.com (mail-ua1-x92d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92d]) (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 DE2531277CC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92d.google.com with SMTP id d8so1237239ual.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 15:48:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jsOYYXrj+Rtd8ZlsXYRnQrfmeSlObURBO6moCArU+9Y=; b=qoMGHfrYZzZ55JcUwd00FdX5yarMFbhZD/QJnwc6FxfW1h3t3fjEYOhQzs7xyM68jg /9sr3/LweGhl3Vd1OHSUdHBk6B2ILxz0Q0+DYFTfvzEt2fLMBi+TCjaeE50hZgFqvJEX ftYugKArsx5LbWBZA3s5p+TYtvRAXX4QKDOjqmgv6yD43FE5Vye04eYyp+Eq7yUgCyeE fxU8iBfXlcFJLH0zRBFZW+hdiUBy6APv1Sn6yijUWIiErF/XAVdECbVfziKWLRvFxLbc 2C8CJLmDBjoaf0x2KpFAoHX47UbccNmXYNyjANDr4xU8ABrbgaKpyaMIG3Xwwc9R0kGn lWzw==
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=jsOYYXrj+Rtd8ZlsXYRnQrfmeSlObURBO6moCArU+9Y=; b=HxjaygEDn8oIBvXhh75bHdj8oNPbKmgQ0hLfCmnei/xLvfFVktHLhy9zxRfOa9FWoD 5J4FhMFC3s+WCk+yIKE1P4d+QD7ISP/DoAJa4N9TjEn5TU4rfBG4f75LUuWmCYnYD6Rm zUiRe2wnYcOKo9V7SgbFjSPl2IDpKOU8PBf2LKt0JN6GNh0OUAfLd0ichfwaalSpXPKj eM1y3n6u/Big0N4J3JFDLM8BE8SXhzAK77R//YkxFsQC5DkRga2YIdFVsMru7gXR3V31 mTQRi1xh2j99DRjW9JNb8xRtT0FC7piCMlsYZVYbnnBCu3aJjnXWRusa0nPd17MBTCLh YV0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gILK1LllD4zw7wHHityYTp2SueoC4LYjtGS69bZjCSwR1tQLg2+ 2EzE6pPm5iCPUG4s7NUmYixtnhGC7Z/1jq3I4b0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eWdTH0wmvGk0B3SN5bf+OMOW/jKYX8Kn7dR2aL6aXU4FBr2KCI4gEDvWkwfZeLKLZ3/AvNZqmYsFnxiOJL3Fo=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:60da:: with SMTP id g26mr4838625uam.104.1541807333651; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 15:48:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f4786770-e4f4-f7d2-8dbf-f389ca6b0b7d@nostrum.com> <996451f7-a863-14cd-6899-45e1c9bb9e2b@gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0exuw6pTvikWnwNGKUOkviNtVSEfM331W6Uq_N_43D6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-0exuw6pTvikWnwNGKUOkviNtVSEfM331W6Uq_N_43D6g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:48:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dvPSL6NB6ERUyexFOEs3kx1DQV+gxG4qBY4Ng_YKZCPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006f3b05057a43fe0d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Y-fb4bUqECWie-Ua57OPa3cU3d0>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] IP handling and mDNS: The issue with obtaining consent
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 23:48:57 -0000

Agree with Justin.  The IETF is not the appropriate SDO to deal with
permissions.

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 6:22 PM Justin Uberti <juberti=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I understand the sentiment here, but we're a standards body that designs
> protocols, and our ability to impose vague requirements on implementation
> user interfaces is limited at best.
>
> I prefer to maintain the current text in the document regarding consent,
> which was the result of extensive WG discussions.
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:42 AM Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> since we were running out of time in the meeting, a supplement comment
>> regarding the rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates draft and the plans for IP
>> handling in general:
>>
>> I want to endorse the mDNS extension draft as I believe it is a
>> significant step towards getting WebRTC out of the blocklist of all
>> those privacy plugins for browsers.
>>
>> The draft states that the IP hiding technique should be applied to use
>> cases where no consent has been requested and that obviously affects
>> those use cases in a negative way. This is the first extension to the IP
>> handling draft but it shows a direction which makes it reasonable to
>> assume that "consent" vs. "no consent" will diverge further for privacy
>> reasons. And that is something I *would* generally encourage...
>>
>> However, it's only fair to take a step back to ensure that all use cases
>> can request user consent appropriately in order to escape those
>> restrictions. I don't think we can ignore that this hasn't happened so
>> far in browsers which all rely on the use of getUserMedia. That is not
>> appropriate for media receive only or pure data use cases. Thus, I would
>> like the IP handling document (or the extension draft) to require
>> implementations to allow for consent requests in a neutral way.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lennart
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email