Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 25 August 2014 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 695941A020A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
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 kxrJqSuhFrYk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C07221A01EB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id d1so2997111wiv.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
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=TW1kGXohG0mUB0n2u9INt0YaZ1YQ/kizuqB+DipGGAI=; b=BexiutoF6oo/nA/1aTgPafLIZq9MdN9MxOi4AyHHw+JpzA9DBvJffpLRRlYDQ8267F Bihqk6weIaO3QX6HBgE2CyaRJHezvFhg2dUXnx+JwAzzDIgeLEYqGBbPJNAS9L4ioeqp jmMg2uoMObF3zuZjff1Zfc/wkxyq65bpZOXV2MCqk8cIQ4srwFVsXc/gPH3bMYoDuPeg BBxYwnWlIDnlpm3HNAwfAYSVC2en3Nx3nwXke+PvKzI+wXUW8a1laj2gfaWUAYirzdXZ 968NJ+5ou27KCA5DAQTUID5nK2UJNnexGLTqRolHHGtWjrkBVWvtgTOtQC52S/E44qK8 hCNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm5wTRCLDpN1ws6lErsFj+l8Bj7+oe2jEFLl29Cf55EqDlwAnLhsU8eQVC3YJkbwGR5nMyt
X-Received: by 10.194.59.42 with SMTP id w10mr24628858wjq.15.1408990806306; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u10sm3170559wix.2.2014.08.25.11.20.05 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id d1so2963889wiv.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.161.231 with SMTP id xv7mr11413168wjb.78.1408990805283; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.20.7 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E52F290@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CAKz0y8ws+ARTZaVRpMBcRc_mmc_8cEHdurt=nQ39xdSwtNPPRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxs9=YPZGUzQxHkuP8KQA6iV_ntJ8PWKtyJa9tioMhBBuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKz0y8xDcFtLFDPGBopJ5QNHh21TSxvVcEuSKRPhL6rJUqf7uQ@mail.gmail.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E52EB28@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAD5OKxu7XGCTvk2R91DFzo8+H0EA8S42ZHagVNmGpHj0G5fFsg@mail.gmail.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E52F290@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:20:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxusDZkSLd+O1xKHreUjMC913PM50seKRFfB_Dsu7NJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01493c5470da100501783c13"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/lcCNYwj6vdc12v2MOuDxWrfSVNs
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness
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, 25 Aug 2014 18:20:10 -0000

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) <
Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

>  *IMO, ICE gathering, connectivity checks, prioritization etc. is much
> more work than doing just consent checks.*
>
> *ICE-lite entities (please note gateways in specific) don’t implement
> ICE-full because they can get away with ICE-lite due to presence of public
> ip. Why complicate an implementation unnecessarily?*
>
>
If the end-point is located on a public IP, ICE gathering and
prioritization are trivial. The benefits of aggressive nomination, which is
present in full ICE, on the other hand, are quite significant. ICE-full
should be recommended anyway.


> *IMHO, consent checks for ICE-lite have a security reason to exist; the
> same security reason why ICE-full clients needed it. Isn’t
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness right place to define this?*
>
>
> I would prefer no mongrel ICE end points to be defined since I would
prefer never to test against them.
_____________
Roman Shpount