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

[Nils Ohlmeier <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 30, 2018, at 15:03, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Any TURN server provided by the browser is in effect a proxy, and forcing use of said proxy can be done either through firewall config or explicit selection of Mode 4. (IOW, no new mode is needed.)

I do agree that these two configurations result in a similar behavior.
But I doubt that these use the same code path in implementations.
And (thus) I doubt readers of the draft/RFC will automatically come to the same conclusion.

It think it might be helpful to add another sentence explaining this scenario.

> The document originally pointed at RETURN as an example of how such TURN proxying could work, but was removed in order to avoid a dependency.

Fair enough.

  Nils

> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:22 AM Cullen Jennings <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Apr 17, 2018, at 3:15 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti=[e-mail] <mailto:juberti=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> IMO "trusting the TURN relay but not the application" is not a significant enough benefit to merit adding specific functionality for.
>> 
> 
> In the case were the TURN server is provided by the JS, I agree. But in the case where the configuration of the browser provided the TURN server, then I think it is as trusted as say a VPN server.
> 
>