Re: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 6F7A81310ED; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 Rcatxi8aP1rR; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 338CC12F1A2; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bens-macbook.lan (cpe-66-25-20-105.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.20.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x26NiDMx021466 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:44:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1551915855; bh=X/yFqDf+AT4hWRUzcuwV4zmfsX57vNWKwMBpypvFcEY=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=J0AQdjlsvw/XEsED3SIyYy4tXwAb0CQWAEG2n4cpIQwVo0fWyk+JoVstZmPWAuOXQ lRf9LpSLWT9cfM8kOjMobevtsdmkNwP8NBYeKXXAXIwIGLGk/zDMKCVHeL4hbIFlp4 NkUItVcuE3UEBlpK4aCFNgeekSZE2LoP/fSWrKWI=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-20-105.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.20.105] claimed to be bens-macbook.lan
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <65AC0812-0A88-42AD-8645-AC3318E60F8B@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6F824338-3390-47FE-B095-D3D86AB8277A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:44:06 -0600
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3wQ3Dz58Kohx+dJOEMOiPPmKHfwZrQwGB5j5R7kiG9tA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
References: <155175838513.5229.12205097799963525432.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOJ7v-3wQ3Dz58Kohx+dJOEMOiPPmKHfwZrQwGB5j5R7kiG9tA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/pMz16trTDF4uv6rM2_ej83kf8iw>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Mar 2019 23:44:21 -0000


> On Mar 6, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 7:59 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com <mailto:ben@nostrum.com>> wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: Yes
> 
> 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 <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/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling/>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I agree with Mirja that this reads more like a BCP. Was BCP status considered by the WG?
> 
> I don't think it was explicitly discussed. We have been treating this document similarly to the other recommendation documents for WebRTC, e.g. the recommended audio codecs in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7874 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7874>;; these docs are all Standards Track.

It’s not a show stopper from my perspective, especially if we are talking about recommendations to W3C.

> 
> (nit) §3: Please expand "RTMFP" on first mention.
> 
> (nit) §5.2: "Mode 1 MUST only be used when user consent has been provided"
> Please consider "... MUST NOT be used unless user consent has been provided."
> 
> §11.2: It seems like the references for STUN and TURN should be normative.
> 
> It wasn't clear to me that STUN and TURN meet the bar of "required to implement this RFC". Open to other points of view here though.

§7 contains says applications SHOULD deploy a TURN server; that’s enough to make TURN normative. It’s less clear for STUN, but I think it passes the “necessary to fully implement or _understand_” bar.

Ben.