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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

Repo is here :)

https://github.com/juberti/draughts

spt

> On May 1, 2018, at 17:33, Justin Uberti <juberti=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Do you want to take a shot at the text? (either in email or as a PR)
> 
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:21 PM Nils Ohlmeier <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 30, 2018, at 15:03, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Any TURN server provided by the browser is in effect a proxy, and forcing use of said proxy can be done either through firewall config or explicit selection of Mode 4. (IOW, no new mode is needed.)
> 
> I do agree that these two configurations result in a similar behavior.
> But I doubt that these use the same code path in implementations.
> And (thus) I doubt readers of the draft/RFC will automatically come to the same conclusion.
> 
> It think it might be helpful to add another sentence explaining this scenario.
> 
>> The document originally pointed at RETURN as an example of how such TURN proxying could work, but was removed in order to avoid a dependency.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
>   Nils
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:22 AM Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 17, 2018, at 3:15 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> IMO "trusting the TURN relay but not the application" is not a significant enough benefit to merit adding specific functionality for.
>>> 
>> 
>> In the case were the TURN server is provided by the JS, I agree. But in the case where the configuration of the browser provided the TURN server, then I think it is as trusted as say a VPN server. 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb