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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 07/03/18 22:13, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> To also be clear: my main objection is to the term consent being
>> used at all. The stuff below isn't that big a deal, though would
>> change if the WG did drop the idea of "consent" supposedly being
>> a real thing.
>>
>>
> So, while I am sympathetic (just generally, really, not just to this), I
> think "consent" is basically a term of art in the web world and that its
> use in the document is consistent with the more general use.
Yes. And there's IMO plenty of reason to not want to be consistent
with that general (ab)use. If we start down that road, I worry that
we'll end up with the moral equivalent of "you looked at my web-page
(possibly whilst ignoring 300 pages of legal crap); therefore you
have already agreed to my T&Cs" which'd be an even worse thing if
attempted/applied at lower layers. To me, this usage matches that
(slightly exaggerated) anti-pattern.

> If you know of a different term of art here that would be similarly
> well-understood, I would be glad to know of it.  

Fair point and a fair ask.

I'll think some more about it, but TBH, I doubt I could come up
with something with a chance of garnering WG consensus. (I don't
think this is just terminology btw - I suspect with any better
term, the modes defined would also have to change.)

If I get inspired, I'll post something. (Hopefully someone smarter
than I and with more WebRTC/STUN clue will get there first:-)

If I don't, and nobody else does, it's fair to consider me in the
rough.

Cheers,
S.

> It may also be an
> interesting project to create such a term.  But I don't think the document
> should wait on that.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 07/03/18 20:47, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>> To be clear, the MUST does not say that all interfaces MUST be used if
>>> consent is given, rather the converse, that you MUST only use all
>>> interfaces if there is consent.
>>
>> It's unclear to me that there's any practical difference there.
>> Are there any implementations that do something else? (Apologies
>> if that's clear to everyone else:-)
>>
>>> In addition, while gUM consent is given as an example, it is not
>> normative.
>>>
>>>    Mode 1 MUST only be used when user consent has been provided.  The
>>>    details of this consent are left to the implementation; one potential
>>>    mechanism is to tie this consent to getUserMedia consent.
>>
>> Sure. OTOH, IIUC, that is what's done in web browsers so it kind
>> of really is normative, in practice. Again, apologies if there
>> are other things done in browsers.
>>
>> If I recall correctly, it was not made normative because mobile
> applications might use this using advice outside browser contexts.  I can't
> find an immediate citation to that, though, so it may be a convenient
> reconstruction rather than an accurate memory.
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> 
>> S.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Stephen Farrell <
>> [e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hiya,
>>>>
>>>> On 07/03/18 19:49, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the WGLC for the "WebRTC IP Address Handling Requirements”
>>>>> draft available @
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling/.
>>>>> Please review the draft and send your comments to this list by
>>>>> 2359UTC on 30 March 30 2017.
>>>>
>>>> I've raised this previously, so this is, I guess, mostly just
>>>> for the record, and I'll likely still be in the rough...
>>>>
>>>> I continue to think it is a bad idea to use the term "consent"
>>>> at all, and especially coupled with getUserMedia and with mode
>>>> 1 having a MUST for using all interfaces based on what I think
>>>> is such a bogus concept. There is, IMO, no valid way in which a
>>>> person can fairly be considered to have consented to any of this.
>>>> I think entwining IETF specifications in the tangled web of web
>>>> "consent" (so called) is going in exactly the wrong direction.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, C/T/S _______________________________________________ rtcweb
>>>>> mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>