Re: [rtcweb] Call for review

westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Wed, 06 March 2019 10:11 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 2C25412D4EA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 02:11:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ifgy6OyAt0s0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 02:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001-out2.apm-internet.net (smtp001-out2.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.224]) (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 DA36E127598 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 02:11:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 15577 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2019 10:11:10 -0000
X-APM-Authkey: 255286/0(159927/0) 395
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 6 Mar 2019 10:11:10 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EDD18A069F; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:11:10 +0000 (GMT)
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 BeOqXuQIKLur; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:11:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [172.20.10.2] (79.cust.gb.ggsn1.truphone.com [185.99.25.79]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A9CA18A016B; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:11:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Message-Id: <E47BF5F9-0CF4-4D0D-A273-A35893191D02@westhawk.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD09B6E4-8A68-4418-B5F2-A6B8E5914711"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:11:01 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3YE7xFGoP21R46Ok5nrMK1qkWRQ63kBCuuhHqkAmRs6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBEzEFtRyvApTs9p4AvixMFO0Fe-Z+Wk5mh09ZxY_4uOQ@mail.gmail.com> <3AAE140F-F6BC-4C5F-A5AF-DE81A8876C21@westhawk.co.uk> <CAOJ7v-3YE7xFGoP21R46Ok5nrMK1qkWRQ63kBCuuhHqkAmRs6Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/lH2t-GYg_eING_h59uYeieiS1lY>
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 10:11:17 -0000


> 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”

(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)

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>