Re: [rtcweb] Please require user consent for data channels

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 07/19/2015 08:06 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:
>> Being multihomed means multiple interfaces with a default route. There's no
>> > "going against the local policy" in this case when sending packets on any
>> > interface.
>> > 
>> > The point is that in this case, all three interfaces can potentially yield different
>> > server-reflexive candidates, which is why they must be gathered separately. As
>> > for relayed candidates, they also need to be gathered separately because some
>> > interfaces may be faster for talking to the TURN server and it is useful to
>> > compare the candidates gathered on all 3 interfaces. Also nothing guarantees
>> > that you're allowed to reach the server server on any interface that has a
>> > default route, so you need to try them all.
> This will change in the future with multiple provisioning domains (PVD) defined in MIF WG, new socket API will be provided to allow applications to learn about each PVD and use them separately, and as discussed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7556#section-6.3 application may not override hard set selected by the user.
Rule #53 of the IETF: Things will change in the future, including
deployment of just-completed iETF standards, but we don't know when and how.

Solutions we engineer MUST work in the current Internet.

+1 to Simon - the way systems are designed, implemented and deployed
*now*, there may be multiple interfaces with multiple default addresses,
and there's nothing intrinsically illegal, immoral or fattening about an
application accessing them.

(I have personal opinions about the APIs we use to access those
interfaces, only some of which are suitable for repeating in polite
company, but that is a completely different topic.)

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.