Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-10.txt

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Mon, 15 December 2014 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.com>
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 305291A6F99 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:45:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 NLTLrXjCZj58 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:45:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com (mail-lb0-f178.google.com [209.85.217.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0DBB1A6FCE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:45:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id f15so10056430lbj.37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:45:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6D3YAJGWZP9qrez+MkmsY4E+42JKsBj/PK+h1sRuTyY=; b=mvTsCe/8T9CH6CyediPUH9p4fa42TX0r71q4et/PpltCrBnftb56sv8sOVJNDrFzS5 i0Yi/W+pL3y5+4bDZtR7M+mDbM33a/fD1zQVCio4ylHQ13rMIIpMdO9JOGYc+ODnxfzi NYgh6qr4HEThT62Fzsk4jQkozgfYNHFUJHyOPgWg/MEpXx7Fyf9ZBn9EAPdKiju23+pr ObGjHzvQY0yzSmNLr35IuUIU9Ega5EO4WLoQqOJDbI8mHQVSrAmDyPEQ3Rqf2818yMAY BR6DMkrkz3NiJkslg0afj7AWbYxLJdeFQCdwjAM86Pd9N8+rrj2EcXwKH2goQknR7j8g +l5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl8VqqEO2OYY+CTcXPfSZ+bPTJoSMQ8LjhlaKAjnLSygLevGZWQH/8axCg4Ys/F8gpSoGx4
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.45.41 with SMTP id j9mr30765212lam.59.1418651124116; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.84.145 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:45:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D5C7B1D@ESESSMB208.ericsson.se>
References: <20141215034305.14105.51004.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D5C7B1D@ESESSMB208.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:45:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CANO7kWATP0_DcvNkMgRE_ddmcPa9DTdNSkRjY2WYFwGVkyCvfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c29bca50449c050a4174c6
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/iXwduBcd9-vx4_grFd3PiIuHlj4
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-10.txt
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: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:45:33 -0000

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> However, I still have an issue with the text saying:
>
>         "A WebRTC implementation [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which
> implements
>         full ICE, MUST perform consent freshness test using STUN request/
>         response as described below:"
>
>
> First, I question whether this document should make normative requirements
> on WebRTC? Shouldn't some WebRTC document instead mandate the usage?
>
> Second, what if a non-WebRTC implementation wants to use the mechanism?
> The procedures are described below the text above, so the way I read it
> they only apply to WebRTC implementations.
>
> Third, *IF* the scope of the mechanism is only WebRTC (perhaps it is, and
> I have misunderstood), I think we need to have some explicit text
> indicating that.
>
> Fourth, if you want to use terminology from [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] you
> need to make sure it's aligned with that draft. I don't think "WebRTC
> implementation" exists in draft-rtcweb-overview-13, so you would have to
> define that as a browser, non-browser or compatible endpoint (or, use those
> terminologies).
>

Fully agreed.

Fifth issue: The rtcweb-overview reference would need to be normative (it
is currently informative).

I suggest to simply remove the whole paragraph and the reference.

Simon