Re: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:03 AM Datatracker on behalf of Eric Rescorla <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Rich version of this review at:
> https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3744
>
>
>
> COMMENTS
> S 3.
> >
> >      1.  If the client is multihomed, additional public IP addresses for
> >          the client can be learned.  In particular, if the client tries
> to
> >          hide its physical location through a Virtual Private Network
> >          (VPN), and the VPN and local OS support routing over multiple
> >          interfaces (a "split-tunnel" VPN), WebRTC will discover not only
>
> This might be simpler if you said "route traffic over" rather than
> "support routing"
>
> Also, do you want to say "may discover" because the guidelines below
> would potentially stop that.
>

This is the problem statement section; I think it is expected that the
proposed guidelines would invalidate some of the problem definition.

That said, I could get behind switching 'will' to 'can', as is used in S3,
category #2.

>
>
> S 6.2.
> >      addresses (0.0.0.0 for IPv4, :: for IPv6), which allows the OS to
> >      route WebRTC traffic the same way as it would HTTP traffic.  STUN
> and
> >      TURN will work as usual, and host candidates can still be determined
> >      as mentioned below.
> >
> >   6.2.  Determining Host Candidates
>
> This is framed a little confusingly, because all host candidates are
> suitable in mode 1. Perhaps add "In modes XXX..."
>

This seems like a good addition.