Subject: [rtcweb] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Datatracker on behalf of Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 20:23:12 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3
  Not sure how the use of temporary addresses in IPv6 [RFC4941] is relevant at
  all to a discussion of NAT usage (#2). Can you please clarify?

  "#2 is a less significant but valid concern.  While the [RFC4941] IPv6
   addresses recommended by [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] are fairly
   benign due to their intentionally short lifetimes"

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 15:41:53 -0800

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling/

 The most obvious case is a NAT64 scenario, where the IPv6 address is never
seen by the outside world, and therefore exposing said address to the web
site presents a potential leakage concern. This concern is significantly
mitigated if the IPv6 address is a RFC4941 ephemeral address.