Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling

[Lennart Grahl <[e-mail]>]

On 20.04.2018 01:29, Justin Uberti wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:22 AM Nils Ohlmeier <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> While I understand the arguments against adding more mode I still think
>> the paragraph describing Mode 4 is missing details and causes confusion
>> among implementers:
>>
>> - It is not clear if the word “proxy” refers to a HTTP proxy or a TURN
>> server.
>>
>> This can easily be improved by replacing the word “proxy” with “HTTP
>> proxy” everywhere in the Mode 4 paragraph.
>>
> 
> The proxy doesn't need to be a HTTP proxy; it could be a SOCKS or RETURN
> proxy (SOCKS is specifically noted in the para).
> 
>>
>> - It is unclear how an implementation should behave in the absence of such
>> a proxy.
>>
>> I would suggest to add a sentence the implementation should not hand out
>> any candidates in the absence of a HTTP proxy.
>>
> 
> This is a fair point. However, my take is that the behavior should be the
> same as Mode 3 in this case, as the web server already sees the client IP.
> I could add a sentence to make this super clear.

The web server, yes. But not the other peer. I don't think we can assume
trust towards the web server equals trust towards the other peer. I
would agree with Nils that it shouldn't hand out any candidates in this
case.

Cheers
Lennart