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

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

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.
>>
>>
>>
>