Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-kaufman-rtcweb-traversal

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:50:33 +0200 (CEST)

On Jun 11, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> [BA] This condition is necessary but not sufficient.  For example, it
> would not make sense for the browser to authorize media to be sent to
> an endpoint which completed a STUN transaction without ICE extensions.
> If this were allowed, then it would be possible to DoS a STUN server. 
> 

This is only true of STUN servers that don't require credentials.

If those really exist then yes, requiring at least one reasonable extension makes sense.
> 
> 
> [BA] Does it really make sense to add the verified address of a responding
> client to the transmit whitelist, even if the nominated flag is not
> set in the response?

Quite possibly yes, especially for mobility cases, but see above that sone extension or flag might indeed be needed before adding.

Thanks for the comments, will review more thoroughly when the plane I'm sitting on lands.

Matthew Kaufman