Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling
westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Sun, 01 April 2018 00:12 UTC
Return-Path: <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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 0F9B612711E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ptKDhhZ2L_iD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp001.apm-internet.net (smtp001.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87261127078 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 34313 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2018 00:12:15 -0000
X-APM-Authkey: 255286/0(159927/0) 3
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 1 Apr 2018 00:12:15 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A947618A0AFD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 01:12:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra003.verygoodemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id oDx1150r8S8U for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 01:12:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [192.67.4.84] (unknown [192.67.4.84]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E4C618A040D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 01:12:15 +0100 (BST)
From: westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:12:14 +0100
References: <1D5B431C-801E-4F8C-8026-6BCBB72FF478@sn3rd.com> <63282b84-4493-3fcb-a95f-4afe17d96bb6@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOJ7v-1gTq+EEjb+-q-T-pABBW--rpNGegoj_d2_7f7AKGksCA@mail.gmail.com> <403713b4-31d4-9085-d639-d3f60935ed5a@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOJ7v-0ED-FK=JmSxBJYfM=PCdgY6kmbiq6aFLcP7OXugG07EA@mail.gmail.com> <e6938f7d-542d-736b-0a3d-9269d7dd06e5@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOW+2dv1ORz2tEkgDTvdM1DtgyOdgXqKU30T4QhLAp1NT+rirg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0tCcg3FdzyfSJ6Y3JaH-TivFf-Sey6+tD8BANJKsjqtQ@mail.gmail.com> <1fceb3c4-35f3-34f7-de1d-79d5805e6d22@gmail.com> <9517D601-D3E8-46E1-94E5-7EC29FD6319B@sn3rd.com> <b5d323ac-2205-2aee-05c9-f270e80215f5@gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0+hr-NddbLCwgjkfyEFEzoLYW8BcE5OYZ+HUiqDRnarg@mail.gmail.com> <0dee004d-159a-a9be-a0b8-ecbfd4204d72@gmail.com>
To: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0dee004d-159a-a9be-a0b8-ecbfd4204d72@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <03D3C806-B93F-4CD0-B57B-507B07E869A0@westhawk.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/bm--cuZky1-icTRhpLCnHcwrLbI>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 01 Apr 2018 00:12:20 -0000
GuM permission is the wrong trust measure here. So for example, If I use webRTC to get a realtime feed from a webcam/ baby monitor then I won’t use GuM, all my recv_only video traffic will go via a TURN server even if I’m on the same Wifi ? Likewise if I use webRTC DC to control my lighting, I get extra latency because I don’t need GuM? (Both of these are real projects). My current workaround is to use the camera to scan a QR and piggyback off that permission. (Which is crazy). The IP address reveal is unrelated to the UserMedia. It is a ‘Trust/location' issue. Also - if GuM permission was granted for this origin, does this mean that subsequent page loads that _don’t_ request GuM don’t get local candidates even if they would get GuM if they asked for it? (i.e. if I’ve once scanned a QR on this domain, do I always reveal my local/public IPs?) Try explaining the logic of any of that to anyone outside this group…. Tim. > On 1 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 01.04.2018 00:26, Justin Uberti wrote: >> As stated before, this is not a problem unique to web browsers. That is, by >> installing a mobile application, you implicitly allow it to use all of your >> network interfaces. As such, trying to design browser mechanisms for >> networking consent seems like misdirected effort. > > First of all, that comparison doesn't really work for me since an app is > much less of a sandbox. So, I personally do not trust arbitrary websites > but I do trust apps that I install (or I just don't install them, or I > partially trust them and revoke some of the permissions they have). > > It's all about expectations: WebRTC networking is special - it does > networking entirely different to what people were accustomed to in > browsers. Which is probably why people are so irritated when they learn > that it leaks IPs even though they've set a proxy or a VPN. And along > with the argument that gUM just does not work for a bunch of use cases, > that is the rationale for my suggestion towards a networking "consent" > mechanism. With that mechanism in place the user has a voice, we cover > more use cases, browsers can ship stricter modes by default without > breaking everything we love about peer-to-peer connections and privacy > extensions might consider dropping WebRTC from their blacklist. I > honestly do not see this as being terribly misguided. > >> Perhaps the key issue here is the word 'consent'. If we replaced this with >> some notion of 'trust', i.e., that the user has specifically engaged with >> this app with the intent of having a communications session, maybe that >> provides a way out, as one can easily claim that installed mobile >> applications and web apps with gUM rights are 'trusted'. > > I'm sorry but I don't really see the difference. gUM requests a > permission to access your camera and your microphone and then assumes > you're "trusting" the page for something different as well. > >> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 3:18 AM Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I really don't have a good suggestion other than being completely >>> honest: "Hey user, I want to establish a direct connection - is that >>> okay for you? Oh, and here is a help page that will tell you what impact >>> this may have on your privacy..." >>> >>> These permission requests don't have to be mutually exclusive either. >>> The above request could also be embedded inside the permission request >>> for getUserMedia to avoid multiple requests: >>> >>> Camera to share: >>> [WebCam 3000 |v] >>> :WebCam 3000 : >>> :WebCam 4000 : >>> >>> Direct connection: (?) <-- "help" button >>> [No (Default) |v] >>> :Yes : >>> :Yes, but hide private addresses : >>> :No (Default) : >>> :No, and force using a proxy : >>> >>> [x] Remember the decision for this page >>> >>> [Don't allow] [Allow] >>> >>> Cheers >>> Lennart >>> >>> On 31.03.2018 00:12, Sean Turner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 29, 2018, at 23:48, Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm fine with the modes, I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not >>>>> an IETF document should include some form of "consent". But I do have a >>>>> problem with the suggestion to use getUserMedia. Can we maybe remove it? >>>> >>>> As the draft shepherd, I’m trying to figure out how to draw this WGLC to >>> a close all in the hopes that we can help each other get this RTCweb WG >>> ship docked. >>>> >>>> As far as dropping the getUserMedia suggestion, I’m a little hesitant to >>> just drop it at this late date. That suggestion has been in the draft >>> since October 2016 and it’s stood the test of a couple of WG reviews; not >>> last calls mind you but there’s been plenty of time for folks to say get >>> that outta there. And technically, it’s just a suggestion with no >>> normative language. So … maybe a happy middle ground is to have another >>> suggestion so that there’s more than one potential mechanism? >>>> >>>> spt >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Justin Uberti
- [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… westhawk
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Balwant Bisht
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… westhawk
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… T H Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… westhawk
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… T H Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Andy Hutton
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… westhawk
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Balwant Bisht
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… westhawk
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… westhawk
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Nils Ohlmeier
- [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-ietf-… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… westhawk
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Lennart Grahl
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handli… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] Nils comments [Was: WGLC for draft-i… Sean Turner