Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling: Mode 2 and VPN scenarios

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Mon, 13 November 2017 22:04 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 B0042126FDC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:04:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 LJIXmAFxOu8U for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:04:49 -0800 (PST)
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 E7DB7126B7F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp35.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp35.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0DE645B5B; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:04:30 -0500 (EST)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp35.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 61B325AA0; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:04:29 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.24.54.38] ([UNAVAILABLE]. [128.107.241.187]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:04:30 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E95D4DCB-D59F-4E98-A962-AA9AAD0D05EE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAO5ixTFmw_x4bdim1SzoWASShAop5aiurueoGy-y0XoFtTqVKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:05:35 -1000
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <EEEB4601-56DE-4B5A-A354-194DB0C0BB23@iii.ca>
References: <768A1C2E-4D4A-44C4-A65D-07728F900C96@jamesandjo.com> <8AACCCBE-CB5D-420C-8B31-C3144D9634F0@iii.ca> <CAO5ixTFmw_x4bdim1SzoWASShAop5aiurueoGy-y0XoFtTqVKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Pearce <james@jamesandjo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/pV3bKBn0qk2WcxUmYXefxZJ1N7w>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling: Mode 2 and VPN scenarios
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, 13 Nov 2017 22:04:51 -0000

My recollection is that we agreed to do this but the draft has not been updated with this yet. 


> On Nov 10, 2017, at 5:36 AM, James Pearce <james@jamesandjo.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi All, 
> 
> Apologies for resurrecting this topic from August. Has anything been decided regarding this? Has it been rolled into other changes, or is it still being considered?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> James
> 
> On 1 September 2017 at 14:57, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca <mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>> wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:06 PM, James Pearce <james@jamesandjo.com <mailto:james@jamesandjo.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The obvious solution seems to be to change the behaviour of mode 2. Rather than using the default route in all cases, we should use the route that was used to fetch the origin. This seems to resolve both the usability and privacy concerns without reducing existing security.
> 
> I agree this is a significant problem and your proposal does seems like a better solution that the current text. We should get people to think about the implications of that change.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb