draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-06.txt   draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-07.txt 
Network Working Group J. Uberti Network Working Group J. Uberti
Internet-Draft Google Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track G. Shieh Intended status: Standards Track G. Shieh
Expires: September 2, 2018 Facebook Expires: October 20, 2018 Facebook
March 1, 2018 April 18, 2018
WebRTC IP Address Handling Requirements WebRTC IP Address Handling Requirements
draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-06 draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-07
Abstract Abstract
This document provides information and requirements for how IP This document provides information and requirements for how IP
addresses should be handled by WebRTC implementations. addresses should be handled by WebRTC implementations.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
5. Detailed Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Detailed Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Modes and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Modes and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Implementation Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Implementation Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Ensuring Normal Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Ensuring Normal Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Determining Host Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Determining Host Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Application Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Application Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
One of WebRTC's key features is its support of peer-to-peer One of WebRTC's key features is its support of peer-to-peer
connections. However, when establishing such a connection, which connections. However, when establishing such a connection, which
involves connection attempts from various IP addresses, WebRTC may involves connection attempts from various IP addresses, WebRTC may
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
of UDP will be disabled, and TCP will be used to send and of UDP will be disabled, and TCP will be used to send and
receive media through the proxy. Use of TCP will result in receive media through the proxy. Use of TCP will result in
reduced media quality, in addition to any performance reduced media quality, in addition to any performance
considerations associated with sending all WebRTC media considerations associated with sending all WebRTC media
through the proxy server. through the proxy server.
Mode 1 MUST only be used when user consent has been provided. The Mode 1 MUST only be used when user consent has been provided. The
details of this consent are left to the implementation; one potential details of this consent are left to the implementation; one potential
mechanism is to tie this consent to getUserMedia consent. mechanism is to tie this consent to getUserMedia consent.
Alternatively, implementations can provide a specific mechanism to
obtain user consent.
In cases where user consent has not been obtained, Mode 2 SHOULD be In cases where user consent has not been obtained, Mode 2 SHOULD be
used. used.
These defaults provide a reasonable tradeoff that permits trusted These defaults provide a reasonable tradeoff that permits trusted
WebRTC applications to achieve optimal network performance, but gives WebRTC applications to achieve optimal network performance, but gives
applications without consent (e.g., 1-way streaming or data channel applications without consent (e.g., 1-way streaming or data channel
applications) only the minimum information needed to achieve direct applications) only the minimum information needed to achieve direct
connections, as defined in Mode 2. However, implementations MAY connections, as defined in Mode 2. However, implementations MAY
choose stricter modes if desired, e.g., if a user indicates they want choose stricter modes if desired, e.g., if a user indicates they want
all WebRTC traffic to follow the default route. all WebRTC traffic to follow the default route.
skipping to change at page 9, line 26 skipping to change at page 9, line 31
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC8089] Kerwin, M., "The "file" URI Scheme", RFC 8089, [RFC8089] Kerwin, M., "The "file" URI Scheme", RFC 8089,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8089, February 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8089, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8089>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8089>.
Appendix A. Change log Appendix A. Change log
Changes in draft -07:
o Clarify consent guidance.
Changes in draft -06: Changes in draft -06:
o Clarify recommendations. o Clarify recommendations.
o Split implementation guidance into two sections. o Split implementation guidance into two sections.
Changes in draft -05: Changes in draft -05:
o Separated framework definition from implementation techniques. o Separated framework definition from implementation techniques.
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 12 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/