IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.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 56D011ADF91 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:02:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 PQG2BSPHDR0X for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718601AD8E3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:02:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=965; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385557348; x=1386766948; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=PLDLNQsWYSczDPDoMUD8UISUOjrCvhCiYEeA1g8W4rs=; b=dvjlvCy+rND3PM2CkKcxCxQe/dAfXQ/aBE5WAQQFkMMSwT7nTU1G39aS OGf41UmmbPgpLomFlpcR1L+5ekzy6QADBZ5AWj+VoDTykys9mZ8/wHoQD vL2SDq0eJMfVzGNk/mAwKPZPYca0EfVxkS/pd5xQ7Gk0ctugdq4BkF2nY o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFABftlVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC7pxgR0WdIIlAQEBAwE6PwwEAgEIEQQBAQsUCQcyFAkIAgQBDQUIh3MGwD4XjlExBwaDGoETA6ongymCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,782,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="2637521"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2013 13:02:27 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rARD2Rh9032292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:02:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:02:27 -0600
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00
Thread-Index: AQHO60O66nMexb/MjEm6a7rVxenuKJo4sw3AgABpCYD//+ogoA==
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:02:26 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2426F209@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <CEAB0083.6FBE3%rmohanr@cisco.com> <5285E318.3090006@ericsson.com> <BLU169-W10885AF717BCBB60830502093E60@phx.gbl> <CABkgnnVpikDFwzfc=6CnHDOb6rmoe5-54AdYPyrbRvU34Epfig@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W11416B2C0D42888C078A7F493E60@phx.gbl> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2426E369@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CABkgnnU5RqbF-PPtihGU+rtuqemN9f7N7nXLB05_OpF7EmhxjQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C55D40B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2426EF4D@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C55D48D@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C55D48D@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.39.65.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:02:30 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:32 PM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); Martin Thomson
> Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness@tools.ietf.org; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] RFC 6520 vs. draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-00
> 
> Hi,
> 
> >>> [1] and [2] can be solved by mandating WebRTC endpoints to support
> consent.
> >>
> >> I thought we were going to do that anyway - no matter what consent
> >> mechanism we use.
> >
> > If DTLS based consent mechanism is picked then both peers must support DTLS
> heartbeat and willing to exchange DTLS heartbeat request/response.
> 
> How is that different from using ICE for consent? That also require support
> from both peers, doesn't it ?

Yes, ICE for consent also requires support from both peers. 

-Tiru.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email