Re: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 07 March 2019 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 B6A06131329 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:34:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 nrfhpFVaFRXw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (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 A5606131321 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:34:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id l5so12808976lje.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 18:34:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mH22Rz9Fifbnu1noX9kEUmr8XE3Xw2Lv0k2uiiYUDVs=; b=dVu92ExHQHbb6Zt3OtFpuRBvjdD0wenY60npZ9lKI9nNR+/kfcOP8LwIWxyOV8JqM+ g+wJgfqQT6aNEJ9rB8A/rbArqrDGDXCc0qnca+q2XDdeeSczhvvaGFsGNFDsPw9Cvswm lxisW/hz9uPvTa6wFEk3O8GGP8gm6bzQrpbues1sxxCfDBnfiLQ29HoCTVPCDlF44u1C TSeuQFa+w2l+Tf/ZykswKwqcW1mEvLy/+hZv4g1qdDCluoxQWVIVsV8JK57EZLgQBqLI McARr8axOn6l06md9+Av+sFmfV5/sWWVCEKi6kUP1KnytGUDgR2B6mu3M1EQsKwwwH7T YciQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mH22Rz9Fifbnu1noX9kEUmr8XE3Xw2Lv0k2uiiYUDVs=; b=B3o6W/HqemBenpZhgRvo/ilCYsEkDAVbhDjh0rPTmp9hG2oQrYNm1TjE+dqzd7YuSQ AnDNSablGV/hR2heoUi6i+A4VNMBfAJs1+C2RmjiX31QfUYSXqGDHeZ7tnr8wMO6al0r +T7aIIxUf4CUV13zFRkLKx2vmczssWwRWN0BybQdylFOfQ2hTmg15cxoineqeFoPohQ5 HcYjttb94LUZjtKaaNpwari/YcST3J6+yiiMsGINpP5JROPCHEEyPtOvEk5HyY3UVD46 szHArAQXt1O2priWEL4RWFc67kzjjczbGsymUszf7aX/ThPhrZJnKgJx/KPpt2HcKvTE jnyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUYSd3kXBa1z7iw7SwtOYxGEsOaIn9JwVaLa2bs55SQ73EXJkDR /TJwtONLKiPEunZK7PtTABVSWhcjLKpk/AOu8ACMsw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqygas8cJDqQu/pJ5N0Yd17R5PKDGK7k5S/1MaWRdCcuuK/l+LvJcBMV+kwN0GNalQEA3wsWUs/LnPQYxnYanNs=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a28f:: with SMTP id k15mr4319370lja.160.1551926052659; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 18:34:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155188458557.5238.17233070387773707583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOJ7v-0FSHf0y3q14yRE_YiaOafB40s1DgPJhmFe4O42kb-Ykg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-0FSHf0y3q14yRE_YiaOafB40s1DgPJhmFe4O42kb-Ykg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:33:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM9T=+Li=JXk0MT2zKof4tezz_eCN9O5OkRLdoALS0cWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Datatracker on behalf of Eric Rescorla <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000164cc9058377f19a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/r0o2YvuA_SgrXRx83aejYBDsifY>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's No Objection 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: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 02:34:20 -0000

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:45 PM Justin Uberti <juberti=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:03 AM Datatracker on behalf of Eric Rescorla <
> ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>; wrote:
>
>> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: No Objection
>>
>> 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
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Rich version of this review at:
>> https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3744
>>
>>
>>
>> COMMENTS
>> S 3.
>> >
>> >      1.  If the client is multihomed, additional public IP addresses for
>> >          the client can be learned.  In particular, if the client tries
>> to
>> >          hide its physical location through a Virtual Private Network
>> >          (VPN), and the VPN and local OS support routing over multiple
>> >          interfaces (a "split-tunnel" VPN), WebRTC will discover not
>> only
>>
>> This might be simpler if you said "route traffic over" rather than
>> "support routing"
>>
>> Also, do you want to say "may discover" because the guidelines below
>> would potentially stop that.
>>
>
> This is the problem statement section; I think it is expected that the
> proposed guidelines would invalidate some of the problem definition.
>
> That said, I could get behind switching 'will' to 'can', as is used in S3,
> category #2.
>

That's fine.



>>
>> S 6.2.
>> >      addresses (0.0.0.0 for IPv4, :: for IPv6), which allows the OS to
>> >      route WebRTC traffic the same way as it would HTTP traffic.  STUN
>> and
>> >      TURN will work as usual, and host candidates can still be
>> determined
>> >      as mentioned below.
>> >
>> >   6.2.  Determining Host Candidates
>>
>> This is framed a little confusingly, because all host candidates are
>> suitable in mode 1. Perhaps add "In modes XXX..."
>>
>
> This seems like a good addition.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>