Re: [rtcweb] Call for review

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 27DF11274D0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:55:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 P65xCpNOwHPI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (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 AA80612008A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id p18so11839255ioh.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:55:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lkIOujBZxkP8ZXrELYw16z/ea0Aj4lIeTW6VlXVKsPc=; b=PudHGAV92G/PIvgLxe/lY6paKNHFgHyUt1unUB54PiP/S7Wx9rdlivkSID36N3xlFx 6wB1CHMqPM4iHRiOddg7qzDNsCZm2SxoyjrPLqb7uGObOP387GsQtD5qMH84wXE3Lmfm sYzOf+CA0gIUv942NBL7tw1ITRFRbMpCfzF+2UjXXDop4zs991kK9jAcVCp3gS/TGa5+ 7fXRcxyRGdgeg8akbh+FQqShVEKWpYeQHjbjgRoyjWtGxrDwjBLtsRPeWXpS10ZVTUPW cIa1WPJGLzFInBVvGqzCHvfni98z9WawxVZx5iu72cs8qi79VWIEU6COYwc0RGgviehv 4FiA==
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=lkIOujBZxkP8ZXrELYw16z/ea0Aj4lIeTW6VlXVKsPc=; b=E5qCXx/3bYBeGQA0XfDU8jXK4eihDfh0zVPVshrFzCawjtigSsPpAZDkTSFPnTFRwS Cd8OWjfGJgwNbmSvPaTq0MJuA6LSm7MfP3owCJx72L+74XAf/sd/ZWlyAhFouJq+4TKG AoQLOmSzgimFw2tECSBFEnmFeZONKt+U1OlVp3ChSk9y1eCzmTzi/tfhizczVz1xYpm5 6AqCjyc+N25jBRksZdJLz207YyFqkX2J3urTQZy0HgNLjF7qwGVRMTCIZd6c9HYeQ3HE lCEF52kKVs7NsysdD26xLj8kFcAjTDjsDGUFY18ektDSDJPdGJyiGASJrns7eOgKdvS8 xvyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVxN+EgM1MHBAt8DPwJwJXgkXSKD05G/w6nbPYD9Tyb4XTeucUB mQLJ2DNSEOrqdx3DoTEzy7UOcF7sjkRiYGb/1FcvEg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwr+4ZEK2+gaW6br50nKzskF15eSSPuNndY6W2MIQhT8n5S2MNcBpOEWGawZAc7UdP6QncA5234XIJZBcoPz1o=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ef02:: with SMTP id k2mr4396419ioh.95.1551916542730; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:55:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+9kkMBEzEFtRyvApTs9p4AvixMFO0Fe-Z+Wk5mh09ZxY_4uOQ@mail.gmail.com> <3AAE140F-F6BC-4C5F-A5AF-DE81A8876C21@westhawk.co.uk> <CAOJ7v-3YE7xFGoP21R46Ok5nrMK1qkWRQ63kBCuuhHqkAmRs6Q@mail.gmail.com> <E47BF5F9-0CF4-4D0D-A273-A35893191D02@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E47BF5F9-0CF4-4D0D-A273-A35893191D02@westhawk.co.uk>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:55:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3GpEOdWgDDM2EQt_RYyB4=O-qsDpHRuGMGGbpDUXwpdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000407c0f058375ba7f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/clteDz_CphFBzzPWqqUMMpId-MQ>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for review
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 23:55:46 -0000

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:11 AM westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>; wrote:

>
>
> On 6 Mar 2019, at 03:34, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
>
> We'll always mask any local addresses with mDNS, since we don't know if
> they're public or not. We will also provide a srflx candidate with the
> actual address should STUN tell us that information.
>
>
> So the ‘always’ should be conditional on how the addresses are ‘found’?
> Perhaps a definition of Local IP addresses would help:
> “Local IP addresses means addresses discovered by interrogating the
> operating system for
> a list of available interfaces and their associated IP addresses”
>

> Plus a clarification that “these rules do not apply to addresses that are
> subsequently found via
> STUN or ICE - note that this may cause an address to be listed twice -
> once as a host candidate with a masked mdns
> and a second time with it’s IP address as a reflex candidate”
>

Perhaps this could be simplified by simply referring to 'host' IP
addresses, where 'host' has the same meaning (i.e. local interface) as in
ICE.

>
> (I’ve a feeling there is section of the ICE RFC that talks about
> eliminating reflex candidates that duplicate host candidates
> but can’t find it)
>

There is, but I content it does not apply here, since these srflx
candidates will contain a different (non-hostname) address.

>
> Tim.
>
>
> Agree though we should be consistent on terminology, will look into what
> the best option is there.
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:40 PM westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>; wrote:
>
>> On first reading it seems like there might be a conflation of private IP
>> addresses and local IP addresses.
>> the [ip-handling] document uses the term 'Private local IP addresses’
>> where as this document
>> uses "private IP addresses” in the introduction but then uses "The local
>> IPv4 address” without any
>> explanation (I can find) of the difference.
>>
>> Surely this would mean that a standalone device (say a public kiosk)
>> assigned a
>> single routable public IP would mask that address with mdns.
>>
>> Tim.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 5 Mar 2019, at 20:22, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> >
>> > Howdy,
>> >
>> > draft-uberti-ip-handling-ex-mdns is a very short draft describing two
>> new modes  related to draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling using bits of
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates.
>> >
>> > The chairs would like to ask for a couple of reviews; given that it is
>> four pages long, we are hopeful that it will not take much time.
>> >
>> > Please send your review to the list,
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > Ted
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>