IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandre GOUAILLARD <agouaillard@gmail.com> Sun, 11 November 2018 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <agouaillard@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 64D2812F1AB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 02:20:35 -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=unavailable 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 5mpCnzRE9__R for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 02:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (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 03B1D1274D0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 02:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id z13so4180131lfe.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 02:20:32 -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=HxRoQ6PWzJg6SbD6pQXH2KXAFvNtuZQ4Hsr9Gjligpk=; b=oVusFp0V8Hq+sg6ZUA5MmWgHonwIjUd6RX/amUZb3ribgur4Yiri3vI5fa+N4y3IfW 25Nzb70B1+AFPp6CK90fKZqhz1dJFKF+XPzgXIlh4PQseNqIsUSUZk3o7eOZepwZO6j+ LgzEjXBrhaCbh8bWFXaTN8wORh9/IgNDHp5GSQCE9oB/TeA9YGTjk+/iWty8liR31wf8 lE+ZSTOBpWuJVZWLW1Jki5f7m4gV5PXqmwrNyZNjI61pP4efv2AIIGt3Xyoig75qLo2t mJY4S+kw+p7/VkFjP9GN8k2Vygzj3RObUqbMBIxKWGZydjjetyN9roZdA/kShG4vjsuX hjrA==
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=HxRoQ6PWzJg6SbD6pQXH2KXAFvNtuZQ4Hsr9Gjligpk=; b=tBYDZnBLG6nnnmvZCgZcP1t1LMiVGzVzH3lvmNR+0FejzCW+NDyL2cS1YJAFTNngBV nyDFr7ngLbkj2O5U66lmSSjoshleJZgUPUze5GIuYnadEp0tdJoiszgmqWe1C7Dsj5pK 3EOIcnV+HkR4EmPp3uU4E2Vx8KN10KWoANunkrh31TUD1TkDjiMGvGInms3lkw2ipBUA RM6B/PopkVzsUhJnGGq/0bqzzcXEF8gVhUE+3jp6M8PqpxzdGearmlV9x/lrM3WlLpiJ R2Nr2Urxc8hBHb+FVCwUdIvTMinLkU0sbfy1lQSI89ylGB5asklfulLVJhd4VKukK+yN l5gA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJ2P0egxlb/ivnYeQ+CKzogygDF6aHP0vhS93S/g50hWdenegdp cFjOr7lB1RbZ5xYXzc/iRKoaGnJvw6kEvzDQJ0tpD05v
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fl9IdYn1AMNLSz4hTR+Jwdu/Dg7z0CTx8gWRJxQFmNH8K1FtAyZR7I8tiJsA2D0dyP8p5rILOVR79pO+fD8n0=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:2752:: with SMTP id n79mr9643269lfn.11.1541931631110; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 02:20:31 -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> <CAOW+2dvPSL6NB6ERUyexFOEs3kx1DQV+gxG4qBY4Ng_YKZCPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dvPSL6NB6ERUyexFOEs3kx1DQV+gxG4qBY4Ng_YKZCPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre GOUAILLARD <agouaillard@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 17:20:58 +0700
Message-ID: <CAHgZEq7VwHDiTnPzOTNNVw-JPv-rHG1hhuP4CGxMBDLLaCStbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000023ef8f057a60ef89"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/bRocNtQM2DhVFjmUY8gOt81keMA>
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: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:20:35 -0000

+1 with justin.

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 6:49 AM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>


-- 
Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President - CoSMo Software Consulting, Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard

   -

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email