Re: [rtcweb] Security-arch IdP determination issue/DISCUSS

Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com> Tue, 09 April 2019 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <nohlmeier@mozilla.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 1C791120232 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 DFUOG6Euq7eV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 2CAC7120456 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id j26so129265pgl.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=yM66VPLk9goRuGFKqKmCsaxAv3HCodG5SsJkxoVAzGU=; b=BE4VDv0lIc1EWED5tOiFcgd57mMcQmqOMO0IlwFApK5Wv3/UAwuKnXlE7OlH82ArYd x7k17LU3ni7m3kcJym9E0MZY3282ZaoSWgDeoJEUeS26COczCuQ//V3aNywWTTQzxDJG 4xtNerkBcayaSMihEzDvvbOO2D0RfmIVmYAxY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=yM66VPLk9goRuGFKqKmCsaxAv3HCodG5SsJkxoVAzGU=; b=tpY6D0GHs+k7xMNXFF1pU3N/SDjRT+z1o9avvnSTTFNiJu2gGYNYFb2w6S+x9fro/i imiEG2SoTHDrGuFBG6hx+Y3tAingI2122SMXYQly3+jgQJOoC84d8g52eIrWVD5MB6mz A03LmnRcMkbzEtDpFJ10jCk7RSNLDaZflP735oBRKlbIbUi3JnE79Ihuq4sy9JEz+kBp 13eWLwauMoll1dsdD6UCwex5lJRVdw0W4dsV1uAmtsLmOICIwEHmUnmvQW3v97k6uBdI 7ScIUx5PDoFlEMXhdh2G4zZNktHetnrmWEMoZ1WlMk0e0Q5yl6E5mil88rUWMBTzAy7Q Tdkw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVZro1jtzvERyqJE/u1F+amGb6ErDeH0HGRIsQa9YPV89vgxG9J +udwroltGmTLNT+wN4G6U+wVLw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwlf4O/v+kxf01EzaGegT1M+qAKiyxAI8crUf8h1H+PpKOUldxtBouhcY+LbqtK6D7x0FBvUQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:64d3:: with SMTP id t19mr36780236pgv.57.1554844670565; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4600:3f31:973:4d4c:aa24:f66c? ([2601:647:4600:3f31:973:4d4c:aa24:f66c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y37sm48144774pgk.78.2019.04.09.14.17.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
From: Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCUVwC-uRe_pR2_M2DgNDfxCNNRihRApPzCji4PaeJtKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:17:47 -0700
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <17C6C0E9-4748-44D8-A8EE-CEA9F9A6ADB4@mozilla.com>
References: <CA+9kkMCUVwC-uRe_pR2_M2DgNDfxCNNRihRApPzCji4PaeJtKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Yhmzvsygh2vXujfcYm8xvo5_6qk>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Security-arch IdP determination issue/DISCUSS
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 21:17:53 -0000

> On 9Apr, 2019, at 10:59, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> Obviously, our doc predates 5785bis, but given the discuss and that advice, I think the right thing to do here is to drop the ability to have a non-default port or to specify an alternate port.
> 
> Is there anyone currently using this with a non-default port?
> 
> Any objections to dropping this or preferences for specifying an alternate port?

I’m aware of small deployments using this. I don’t recall if they are using default ports.

But in general no objection against specifying an alternate port.

Best
  Nils Ohlmeier