IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 07 March 2018 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 B468B12D86B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 BZdoI7EpXMjT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8375E127419 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA821BE5B; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 22:51:34 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ySqkXMBhQv1i; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 22:51:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.138] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B887BE4C; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 22:51:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1520463093; bh=VCJ3kEYPg/RucoDBUm1Z5yP/QezGzW1x0pLJQDaysRw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=pjhh5y09CUw2KHQxKx0zGlsfs13EYdHyyJKf1lwOsBP5835EZUBSqKAbKuGvQ+nJ+ C4oVvYgJ7XLp3EdIr2yaYsujr2LTyKHbxucMFYiwnZ6NSmjajjH6X5mxlJKQ9TE7uv WfTZ6+BOQS6ctfeRg43wHB5SUtn6NdyGuiJ/PuiM=
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Cc: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <1D5B431C-801E-4F8C-8026-6BCBB72FF478@sn3rd.com> <63282b84-4493-3fcb-a95f-4afe17d96bb6@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOJ7v-1gTq+EEjb+-q-T-pABBW--rpNGegoj_d2_7f7AKGksCA@mail.gmail.com> <403713b4-31d4-9085-d639-d3f60935ed5a@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOJ7v-0ED-FK=JmSxBJYfM=PCdgY6kmbiq6aFLcP7OXugG07EA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <e6938f7d-542d-736b-0a3d-9269d7dd06e5@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:51:32 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-0ED-FK=JmSxBJYfM=PCdgY6kmbiq6aFLcP7OXugG07EA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CZgbKOGmebh1BFH7z0udtkIZpUYakBqQO"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/n6e72hkjaYEh1qvZoXtx1S3c4Ms>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 07 Mar 2018 22:51:40 -0000


On 07/03/18 22:35, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
> I believe that the Brave browser uses Mode 4 in its private browsing mode.
> https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/issues/260

Interesting, didn't know that and good to see.

OTOH, still the vast majority of web browsers will I assume
do mode 1 for the vast majority of webrtc calls.

So it's a bit of a fig leaf IMO.

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email