Subject: [rtcweb] #31: Miscellaneous

From: "rtcweb issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:18:57 -0000

#31: Miscellaneous

 Section 3.2.1.1

 "The application gives the users the opportunity to stop it from exposing
 the host IP address to the application of the other user."

 [BA] This text suggests a requirement for the browser to ask user
 consent, which seems different from what is in F39:

 "The browser must make it possible to set up a call between two parties
 without one party learning the other party's host IP address."

 IMHO, F39 seems somewhat closer to the requirement we want.

 Section 3.2.10.1

 "NOTE: More profiling of what this means may be needed."

 [BA] Section 3.3.1.1 already describes a telephony gateway scenario,
 but for some reason that section doesn't cite requirement F27 (SIP)
 or A20.  FWIW, I'm not sure what this scenario adds, because RFC 3261
 inter-domain federation isn't widely deployed, as opposed to E.164
 inter-connect.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-
  [email-masked]          |  cases-and-
     Type:  defect                   |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  minor                    |     Status:  new
Component:  use-cases-and-           |  Milestone:  milestone1
  requirements                       |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/31>
rtcweb <http://tools.ietf.org/rtcweb/>

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:10:21 -0700

>  consent, which seems different from what is in F39:

I don't know what question I would ask in this case.  Well, at least
as far as being able to be understood goes, that is.  I'd recommend
avoiding this sort of formulation, and would prefer that it simply be
possible to avoid exposing IP addresses.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:12:40 -0700

> possible to avoid exposing IP addresses.

[BA] That is my conclusion as well.