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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> To also be clear: my main objection is to the term consent being
> used at all. The stuff below isn't that big a deal, though would
> change if the WG did drop the idea of "consent" supposedly being
> a real thing.
>
>
So, while I am sympathetic (just generally, really, not just to this), I
think "consent" is basically a term of art in the web world and that its
use in the document is consistent with the more general use.

If you know of a different term of art here that would be similarly
well-understood, I would be glad to know of it.  It may also be an
interesting project to create such a term.  But I don't think the document
should wait on that.



> On 07/03/18 20:47, Justin Uberti wrote:
> > To be clear, the MUST does not say that all interfaces MUST be used if
> > consent is given, rather the converse, that you MUST only use all
> > interfaces if there is consent.
>
> It's unclear to me that there's any practical difference there.
> Are there any implementations that do something else? (Apologies
> if that's clear to everyone else:-)
>
> > In addition, while gUM consent is given as an example, it is not
> normative.
> >
> >    Mode 1 MUST only be used when user consent has been provided.  The
> >    details of this consent are left to the implementation; one potential
> >    mechanism is to tie this consent to getUserMedia consent.
>
> Sure. OTOH, IIUC, that is what's done in web browsers so it kind
> of really is normative, in practice. Again, apologies if there
> are other things done in browsers.
>
> If I recall correctly, it was not made normative because mobile
applications might use this using advice outside browser contexts.  I can't
find an immediate citation to that, though, so it may be a convenient
reconstruction rather than an accurate memory.

Ted



> S.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Stephen Farrell <
> [e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hiya,
> >>
> >> On 07/03/18 19:49, Sean Turner wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> This is the WGLC for the "WebRTC IP Address Handling Requirements”
> >>> draft available @
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling/.
> >>> Please review the draft and send your comments to this list by
> >>> 2359UTC on 30 March 30 2017.
> >>
> >> I've raised this previously, so this is, I guess, mostly just
> >> for the record, and I'll likely still be in the rough...
> >>
> >> I continue to think it is a bad idea to use the term "consent"
> >> at all, and especially coupled with getUserMedia and with mode
> >> 1 having a MUST for using all interfaces based on what I think
> >> is such a bogus concept. There is, IMO, no valid way in which a
> >> person can fairly be considered to have consented to any of this.
> >> I think entwining IETF specifications in the tangled web of web
> >> "consent" (so called) is going in exactly the wrong direction.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> S.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, C/T/S _______________________________________________ rtcweb
> >>> mailing list [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rtcweb mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>