Re: [rtcweb] Consent alternative

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 8C1991ADFE8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 zQsKJcnsU7vo for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s11.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s11.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACB31ADF89 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W84 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s11.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:09 -0800
X-TMN: [3OvaVNX3Pm/pnf7k57ZtFAxdjzhAw+ITqWee71XqMAU=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W84AAFA395B7844922F472C93E00@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_211aeaf1-6ab4-417e-be3d-9791c7b1b4d8_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:28:08 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <9E5D7D59-0536-469E-8CB7-440FF27F0B41@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CABkgnnVNnT8uoWM8T=TqbTmy11CGTeHLP=_7z5KSMSpAsp9SyQ@mail.gmail.com>, <9E5D7D59-0536-469E-8CB7-440FF27F0B41@phonefromhere.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Nov 2013 18:28:09.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[9838E950:01CEE7B0]
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consent alternative
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:28:26 -0000

> This proposal seems (at first glance) to make them intertwine in a quite complex way 

[BA] Might I point out that we already have two mechanisms that affect a sender's ability to continue to send to a given receiver: consent and circuit breakers.  So the complexity you speak of is already there.  For example, the studies we have seen so far raise questions about whether circuit breakers are very likely to fire prior to consent loss, potentially shutting off the packet flow even in situations where consent would be provided.   In those situations, the ICE consent mechanism serves merely to add overhead while providing little or no additional protection.