IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Mon, 02 April 2018 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 7CF0712785F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 06:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 t-JUAhP8zeKW for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 06:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp81.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp81.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.81]) (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 1DC4C126FB3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 06:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp11.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp11.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3F46E552F; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:55:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp11.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id BE061549E; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:55:17 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.1.3.91] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net [70.77.44.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Mon, 02 Apr 2018 09:55:18 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPXZ54xf-H8wCrmEF1_2F43OXRaoiHNsobmEgGtLiC+6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 07:55:16 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <443FC3E5-891C-49BB-90A1-C3139D3C0655@iii.ca>
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> <e6938f7d-542d-736b-0a3d-9269d7dd06e5@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOW+2dv1ORz2tEkgDTvdM1DtgyOdgXqKU30T4QhLAp1NT+rirg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0tCcg3FdzyfSJ6Y3JaH-TivFf-Sey6+tD8BANJKsjqtQ@mail.gmail.com> <1fceb3c4-35f3-34f7-de1d-79d5805e6d22@gmail.com> <9517D601-D3E8-46E1-94E5-7EC29FD6319B@sn3rd.com> <b5d323ac-2205-2aee-05c9-f270e80215f5@gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0+hr-NddbLCwgjkfyEFEzoLYW8BcE5OYZ+HUiqDRnarg@mail.gmail.com> <0dee004d-159a-a9be-a0b8-ecbfd4204d72@gmail.com> <03D3C806-B93F-4CD0-B57B-507B07E869A0@westhawk.co.uk> <540AF425-A798-41BB-8C22-9F697DF46117@westhawk.co.uk> <562af54d-9fcd-48c3-5709-6c8fa469e995@cs.tcd.ie> <8D1E1BA7-9BDE-4302-A698-B1C3E4686F12@westhawk.co.uk> <8d528cc5-84d9-c0cf-be5a-19e836f7ca89@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBPXZ54xf-H8wCrmEF1_2F43OXRaoiHNsobmEgGtLiC+6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/nOczuNTSvWufqB1BLZsMhvh5rO4>
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: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 13:55:22 -0000

All the stuff we are discussing here has been brought up and discussed in the WG. If there was a way we could tweak the words of this to be better, I think we would have already done that. What I don’t want to do is spend a bunch of time rehash old arguments and several months from now come to exactly where we are today. The wording has been tweaked many times. The browsers added APIs so that browser extensions could have better control over what happened. Thick apps have access to all this same data. 

I don’t agree with some parts of the draft but I do recognize that the WG had consensus that the current document covers the issues and I am just in the rough on this. I think most the WG feels that the current draft is the best possible choice and the browser have done what they can to mitigate this. That’s why I tried to make it clear in my email that I don’t expect this draft to change because of my concerns, but I am simply noting my disagreement. I do not think that spending a bunch more time discussing this would in change the outcome from what the draft currently says. 

Cullen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email