Re: [rtcweb] Text proposal for CNAME in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 17 April 2014 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46C31A0180 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 BwOtcTTn0d6C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A731A016F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id w62so654247wes.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j2gd52WSWgATy2Gp2BFUg95yPwHry/XwUKz9WYVKr44=; b=l0yzKPBBuj8p3FraJkczh69n/nqvB6jUYmOZ2fc3fwKY39SoeM2VFW30BuRAgJXyJ3 RcooanLidQgrRrwujUq3FF6f04HAzNAB2N9tg9tIgOH1UGSaY724bXMjcHJSZi430dwE kJPh8FHe+s/rpxEof1xYnf3Kx15JVCFA5zJU99RgDoO/CQCb38EcoRMfqyccx/9yr85E 37NckU4PMSJ67kqwonXgPmyP3Sf5SZJ6S80yDehpkUrS/6ope05EqMhtzusJv+I5E0TB S3RUPhlEVTz4P0wpOxRfyNWKTgd+LBWNpwZg78Aq3W95YmuMsVWPPIqh9/p6XX37cSUG iD4w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.171.167 with SMTP id av7mr12702107wjc.32.1397751362435; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.144.132 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534FB1E7.4050300@ericsson.com>
References: <533E76AC.7030003@ericsson.com> <CABkgnnVD09V80OkXY=ZKicYhjBMR8XZMFYCXrMmHMkVWE7mwVw@mail.gmail.com> <005B30AC-F891-481E-A25A-D3705713F1D3@csperkins.org> <CABkgnnUSpeL8fv=7gRmM+QSYvFgd16r_2cP6J066DL+dkydrCg@mail.gmail.com> <534284B7.7010103@ericsson.com> <534D21C2.20300@ericsson.com> <CABkgnnWC9SCFbRqvnEkciqfHtwv6j48cLP0JeE4DfhH6cqToSw@mail.gmail.com> <534E7D83.3010608@ericsson.com> <CABkgnnVhS8SQKWe69pm+a8o-cqMb5aPy5DKDQv=iVaRLaQtaqA@mail.gmail.com> <534FB1E7.4050300@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX-LzLF_a5Ujo7hdcUC_JSt_Xm7jGxv0CUrEWnFiDjJSw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/sz7Pp170sZ67obktNqnqwT5bCCw
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Text proposal for CNAME in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Apr 2014 16:16:11 -0000

On 17 April 2014 03:50, Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2014-04-17 01:27, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 16 April 2014 05:54, Magnus Westerlund
>> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> Is this better/acceptable?
>>
>> Better, but I don't think that the proposed solution is sufficient for
>> some use cases.  There is no downside to enabling correlation of
>> sessions when the signaling entity is able to force correlation.  Let
>> the app set CNAME.
>>
>
> Sure from privacy point of view, but there are a potential to really
> screw up RTP/RTCP by setting the same CNAME in multiple endpoints part
> of the same communication session. That is why I wrote like I wrote.
> Even using the same CNAME between different instances of the media
> framework, which I assume is the likely result of establishing
> PeerConnection in different tabs/windows in a browser instance could get
> into issues using the same CNAME, due to them really not being based on
> a common context.


Sure, WFM.