Re: [rtcweb] Call for review

Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <nohlmeier@mozilla.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 CC87212D4E9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:34:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 vB9YXgaFYxVH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (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 3927C12796B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id d25so9152503pfn.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 09:34:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Jz0wz73fCz/JZJs0gxJZBNhDGiMvJQMqnOqvchy7xng=; b=ISxraV8PN71CmGoShQ9KxwfZdEA3f3st/7l614gUiO9iydz5nUJxiMuCz1loFnQxT6 njxMDLolqabpOG7SJWoYqpJyW2Q8+w3uHtd5DqdJQmMrYSKnGnCzJUoQQdnP76JCFzFn R5g9rrCCGt+s+/pYix/xih/aRpDTKXhSlx9Ls=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Jz0wz73fCz/JZJs0gxJZBNhDGiMvJQMqnOqvchy7xng=; b=t0OvevEGO7YRqsoIJAoDr402Wuaph+g7cRds0x/zIM0ufQsY8Nk1Wg9MwI5qhdPsfL mCeJtZ1ON5bn1Ml/KC2Unypsbu72YmNyb+sGzeqm+f9lRQvf7UHLV7G4+BdL334jfpRK gV9mWO2u1PmcdD8QGL74rUtd0X5Fgl2keXmE94mHy1Dtn1FfUg8lH/mpooaJq/OfS6WX n+sCwC0q1t/Te3mdyW4uUsuQJnf8SgZ3DQG5Sk2Qc8rObc4lVa0HyGdWhPMQa2umSmcq ePYPsvepalu7OL36cWE5NF1NqSQbkJe61lT7Mj3vT7+uUzYMB1FGylb9NBanaPIYYDrt EUFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXW5NEvUG8kZlSjHg8ZQwvFqapRMDFepuubr+XQ+odVBBuiXgts NnwmQiGDcvdcqYK1wd2IZV9lKg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzVU/VYjVSdVRlFVpA0v7rYs+FB9QRJYllvaTzJqJ/IRrzurwrWQHN4Bv+R0EpICEKAiFTdOg==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:4203:: with SMTP id c3mr7318624pgq.271.1551893644261; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 09:34:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4600:3f31:142a:bdda:606e:3d5c? ([2601:647:4600:3f31:142a:bdda:606e:3d5c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm2737042pgv.30.2019.03.06.09.34.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2019 09:34:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>
Message-Id: <CE0CFB95-7E84-4143-83C9-7E29268FA522@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4A5C051D-9513-4F0F-8432-C251E5F05176"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:34:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: <E47BF5F9-0CF4-4D0D-A273-A35893191D02@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
To: westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/jjtXroaDtJ4Fo4F-Wmviqo_Or2s>
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 17:34:08 -0000


> On 6Mar, 2019, at 02:11, westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>; wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 03:34, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com <mailto: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” 

Isn’t this the definition of a host candidate?
That would have been my interpretation of local addresses any way.

> 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”
> 
> (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)

Yes it has. It might be hidden in one of the sections about peer reflexive candidates.

  Nils

> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb