Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 19 March 2014 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 882D71A077F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, 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 2bqF3Iyi2I4G for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675681A0442 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:f981:e226:281f:c92d]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB63B4037C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5329BABA.6020003@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:41:46 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAOJ7v-0Hw0NFs_avsB2Z8do21BCws2LRZSeSh6HP0t455SPXyw@mail.gmail.com> <B6836FFA-867A-4CBF-9855-D265425EC5E1@cisco.com> <CAOqqYVE=i2L7FxGgKuV0DVaaxYOPnxzSEbDoq0_4Tqapna575g@mail.gmail.com> <CD747481-EBDA-4FFC-A31D-618E6E217420@cisco.com> <5329B617.2070001@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <5329B617.2070001@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/apNyUw3VacILRLvjdxa8-H50qyg
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?
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, 19 Mar 2014 15:42:11 -0000

Le 2014-03-19 11:21, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
>> The application needs to indicate if it wants a temporary address. If
>> the host's policy (or configuration or network) does not support
>> temporary addresses, the application won't get a temporary address.  I
>> don't see why being silent helps?
> 
> What API is it using?
> 
> With a little Googling, the system policy I was thinking of was the
> policy in RFC 6724 ("Default Address Selection for IPv6"), in particular
> section 5 rule 7: "Prefer  temporary addresses".
> 
> I'm happy to say "it is a good idea for systems to implement the
> recommendations of RFC 6724" (or some more 2119-like language). I
> wouldn't want to claim that if a system has chosen to prefer
> non-temporary addresses, it would have to change its non-conformance to
> RFC 6724 in order to be conformant with RTCWEB specifications.

IMHO it would be perfectly sensible to recommend the use of
IPV6_PREFER_SRC_TMP [RFC5014].

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca