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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

[as an individual]

I'm good with (a) or (b). I'm not too hot on (c), as I don't want to see 
this text caught up in another lengthy round of wordsmithing.

/a

On 4/16/18 4:06 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Here's a specific and minimal proposal, which is a slight modification 
> of Sean's proposal in https://github.com/juberti/draughts/pull/98/files:
>
> /The details of this consent are left to the implementation; one 
> potential mechanism is to tie this consent to getUserMedia 
> consent. Alternatively implementations can provide a specific 
> mechanism to obtain user consent *where needed, e.g., when a VPN is in 
> use.*/
>
> Are folks in favor of:
> a) the text above
> b) Sean's proposal (without the boldface)
> c) something else
> /
> /
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:51 AM Justin Uberti <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:juberti@google..com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:34 AM westhawk <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>>         On 15 Apr 2018, at 17:12, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>             An example of this may be an LTE phone that has a ‘data
>>             bearer channel’ and a ‘media bearer channel’ - the
>>             billing routability and QoS behaviour of these
>>             two interfaces will be different. I could imagine that a
>>             carrier app might want to use the media bearer for a
>>             voice call. (Sorry for my 3GPP  semi-ignorance).
>>
>>
>>         I don't think this is relevant to this discussion; since this
>>         isn't surfaced upwards as different interfaces to the OS, any
>>         behavior here is the same as you would get in Mode 2 when
>>         using the cellular interface.
>
>         That’s not the impression I got from this CCC talk
>         https://events.ccc.de/congress/2015/Fahrplan/system/event_attachments/attachments/000/002/829/original/2015.12.28_CCC_Dissecting_VoLTE.pdf
>
>         One of the slides explicitly shows 2 interfaces surfaced to
>         the ifconfig in linux busybox.
>         I realise that these slides are a couple of years old, but I
>         doubt VoLTE has changed much in that time. (I’m still
>         semi-ignorant on 3gpp )
>
>
>     Yes, I see what you mean. It seems like the bearer is intended to
>     be locked down to VoLTE traffic - but this may not always be
>     happening yet in practice (although this issue was reported to
>     Google and may have been fixed in a recent version of Android).
>     Regardless, I would still contend that selecting a specific bearer
>     for WebRTC traffic is outside of our current remit.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb