Re: [rtcweb] CNAMEs and multiple peer connections

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 2F6C01A0545 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:07:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 1k5cQGKD0H1n for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:07:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710211A0128 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:07:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x13so1502613wgg.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:07:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GEjt5dxysFEip2oUobdeAveYjM1S4sNzzFTJryKrJ4s=; b=MYA0jc+FGahLWaTMZxQV3toKo8y6Zx5WW9T0BZj2xIbNT2Z6ITwq/Kl9+PF6Rz8gw1 xfV6L3oSJwKneFCmH2aW+Hb93ZkIWLe8EOqNppJ1Wi8frypYJQ85e+PCgfU4Jtv+y52O pSgbbvnTFdJqIyKwPvuGt7GDFAXozvCK32WZA5G7ZqLt5uqqB4AE5J7VSGE1PfEulH4u wrK1lEK6p5jmsfjQ4Y9geg3mfaynjypCBorA5+A2Hf/XtYd0bl6tJGdPYXWEAlwmTeF7 yWn2uRj6nXLP9j0eHsZ9kAAxxip/xvjRRw1+XXJPuv/BtG+gipF19A9ZxS6dJRoP4KJQ aAPw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.110.41 with SMTP id hx9mr2380899wjb.28.1394035638454; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:07:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.10.196 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:07:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-1J=F-MNnBS96gt3_BXyoQB6jTCoHp0MTEBC-nWrF-BhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnWGQ7GtKd33iF-RNbkeAyqKYshaPDDB=sAh5o-izKichQ@mail.gmail.com> <53171C20.3020001@ericsson.com> <CABkgnnWWoCLKga7RDEmS1kDOuBPaiKaJ+_yj6-yPRSV8LVc=2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1J=F-MNnBS96gt3_BXyoQB6jTCoHp0MTEBC-nWrF-BhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:07:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWQbtKYTuvUyMiCaEijv3KVydR8sxGXZep08B4EQXArxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/aGiXYqGNwJd-nxxa2XVDe-an7HI
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] CNAMEs and multiple peer connections
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: <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, 05 Mar 2014 16:07:27 -0000

On 5 March 2014 14:30, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> I am inclined to make CNAMEs per-PeerConnection (i.e. enforce scenario #2
> behavior) for 1.0, as it has a smaller downside.

I think that I am OK with this.  It might still be possible to
synchronize in the first scenario, but it would require that the
playback protect itself against drift, because CNAME wouldn't be
providing a positive indication that synchronization is safe.