Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 05 August 2015 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 210F01B324D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 mYSZ5kO7TejY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) (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 107121B321C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicgj17 with SMTP id gj17so201639866wic.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=YdKL5HwRtOo3PGtkUwMmjF0okCIrWJQ6TAir300SQT8=; b=apQf6cV0dgUKR5Vktu/mr9fFi4Pu8Dh1Q8L9xGLfRKugJrva7pr0QJ/CRtyzj1PN04 EI/2LPnTjJonZs/puqlLp3QqCWnXNqYLhvSzl5joa0EXPKbibW00bfkYdTuDKu9XCU1a 0mBrbhnude01SETKOO2D4R7sNMkJDXS/TLn84vV16SeJSw6pvHmZ/1PUO28WqsVYBs8n Ky+7s706J54E7VuEHdp86ENOhrwUQQbBCZi10zT2/mgMGilP9bL8Q36D0dx8MJodt8yp RU3KhwHZM6EZnm3REiKVIvxxV3wT3UXwg/sYJb2dK5pGqCPur7AyrHHYo9qLUfK6cwc+ excQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlzN8L+6CrTLicQ/jFKl/LqnrUQg/enyUne+5W1ZFQyDXkboLZdVk+aT8GcgiAf3SIhfIPf
X-Received: by 10.180.74.148 with SMTP id t20mr585994wiv.31.1438795388820; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.85.86 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55C245BA.9000504@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20150805130607.20844.70680.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B348E9691@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <55C23FFD.8070201@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBM=h0cL6uK=NbodUhCMmGMBEChKp0n3JSeK-D=JPWC30g@mail.gmail.com> <55C245BA.9000504@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:22:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNW6kAANTCBDwC9SFeYVPy1eBsj2=ai7ztTWJqjYa2RSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c7f5c0e3501051c93a822"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ZvL1HV9X6XBsBz2qYKF9iR16nIE>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.shepherd@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.ad@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: <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: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 17:23:12 -0000

This freshness stuff is also about #3. Namely, it's about the endpoints
doing continual STUN connectivity checks between each other.

-Ekr


On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
>
> On 05/08/15 18:01, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Farrell <
> stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hiya,
> >>
> >> On 05/08/15 14:22, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >>> Hi Stephen,
> >>>
> >>>> (2) WebRTC does not require STUN or TURN servers for some calls,
> >>>> even if it does for many. Why is it ok to require such a server be
> >>>> present in all calls (which I think this means) espcially when that
> >>>> means exposing additional meta-data (calling parties in a case
> >>>> where the servers weren't needed and call duration in all cases) to
> >>>> those servers when that is not always necessary?
> >>>
> >>> Could you please refer to the text which you think mandates STUN or
> >>> TURN servers?
> >>
> >> Sure, I think there were a couple of places, but I'd have to
> >> track 'em down. I'll try update the ballot with that if it
> >> turns out to be needed. (Be tomorrow before I get to that,
> >> sorry.)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If there are no NATs, the STUN requests can be sent between the
> >>> endpoints, without STUN or TURN servers.
> >>
> >> Really - so browsers will be able to act like a STUN server or
> >> something? I didn't know that. Where's that described?
> >
> >
> > ICE uses STUN in three ways:
> >
> > 1. For address discovery
> > 2. To talk to TURN servers (TURN is based on STUN)
> > 3. For ICE connectivity checks.
> >
> > Christer is referring to #3.
>
> Ok, and what happens with this freshness stuff in that
> scenario? (Apologies if its in this or some other draft
> and I missed it)
>
> S
>
> >
> > -Ekr
> >
> >
> >> S.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Christer
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rtcweb mailing list
> >> rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >>
> >
>