Re: [rtcweb] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03: (with COMMENT)

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 8:24 AM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Oct 2, 2022, at 18:28, Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > # Internet AD comments for {draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03}
> > CC @ekline
> >
> > ## Comments
> >
> > ### general
> >
> > * Is there a reason this didn't get renamed with -ietf-?
> >  I see a working group adoption event in the history.
> >  Not important, just curious.
>
> We technically didn’t have to so to save a step we skipped the renaming
> process.  I also thought it was going to happen faster than it did ;)
>
> > ### S5.2.1, S5.3.1
> >
> > * RFC 8840 Section 4.1.1 says that either 0.0.0.0 or :: may be used.
> This
> >  section says that "c=" MUST use 0.0.0.0.  Can :: be used instead?
> >
> > * Ditto for the Initial Answers discussion (and 8440 S4.1.3), pp. 53, 55.
>
> It would be if IPv6 was used :) The textual setup is in this bullet (note
> the such as):
>
>  The value of the <nettype> <addrtype>
>  <unicast-address> tuple SHOULD be set to a non-meaningful address,
>  such as IN IP4 0.0.0.0, to prevent leaking a local IP address in
>  this field; this problem is discussed in [RFC8828].
>
> then to make the section flow it keeps using the IPv4 and the latter
> sentence then is:
>
>    The "m=" line MUST be followed immediately by a "c=" line, as
>    specified in [RFC4566], Section 5.7.  Again, as no candidates are
>    available yet, the "c=" line MUST contain the default value "IN IP4
>    0.0.0.0", as defined in [RFC8840], Section 4.1.1.
>
> and so on.
>
> Also see s6.1 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8828/.
>

Apologies for the long delay for this response.

I forget the exact reason why we decided to prefer 0.0.0.0 vs :: (we had
actually preferred :: at one point). I did some digging and
https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/170 refers to this topic as being
resolved at IETF 93, but I wasn't able to find the exact details in the
minutes.

Regardless, I believe the answer is that we felt some endpoints that did
not support IPv6 would choke on :: and blow up the whole negotiation, so I
suggest we keep it as-is.

Justin