Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi,

Correct.

From a STUN protocol perspective, consent requests are normal STUN connectivity checks.

So, the browser will be a “server” in the sense that it receives and processes STUN connectivity checks, but it will not be a “STUN server” :)

Regards,

Christer

From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com]
Sent: 5. elokuuta 2015 20:22
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@ietf.org; rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.shepherd@ietf.org; rtcweb@ietf.org; The IESG; Christer Holmberg; draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness.ad@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

This freshness stuff is also about #3. Namely, it's about the endpoints
doing continual STUN connectivity checks between each other.

-Ekr

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:

On 05/08/15 18:01, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 05/08/15 14:22, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>>> (2) WebRTC does not require STUN or TURN servers for some calls,
>>>> even if it does for many. Why is it ok to require such a server be
>>>> present in all calls (which I think this means) espcially when that
>>>> means exposing additional meta-data (calling parties in a case
>>>> where the servers weren't needed and call duration in all cases) to
>>>> those servers when that is not always necessary?
>>>
>>> Could you please refer to the text which you think mandates STUN or
>>> TURN servers?
>>
>> Sure, I think there were a couple of places, but I'd have to
>> track 'em down. I'll try update the ballot with that if it
>> turns out to be needed. (Be tomorrow before I get to that,
>> sorry.)
>>
>>>
>>> If there are no NATs, the STUN requests can be sent between the
>>> endpoints, without STUN or TURN servers.
>>
>> Really - so browsers will be able to act like a STUN server or
>> something? I didn't know that. Where's that described?
>
>
> ICE uses STUN in three ways:
>
> 1. For address discovery
> 2. To talk to TURN servers (TURN is based on STUN)
> 3. For ICE connectivity checks.
>
> Christer is referring to #3.
Ok, and what happens with this freshness stuff in that
scenario? (Apologies if its in this or some other draft
and I missed it)

S

>
> -Ekr
>
>
>> S.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>