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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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
>>
>>
>