Subject: [rtcweb] Percent Encoding Issue from Today's Discussion

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 18:01:10 +0700

Based on the discussion in today's session about percent encoding of the 
user portion of identities, I have made the following PR, which I 
believe reflects the outcome of that conversation:

https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/security-arch/pull/81

/a

---

From: Lennart Grahl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:42:02 +0100

Hi everyone,

since we were running out of time in the meeting, a supplement comment
regarding the rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates draft and the plans for IP
handling in general:

I want to endorse the mDNS extension draft as I believe it is a
significant step towards getting WebRTC out of the blocklist of all
those privacy plugins for browsers.

The draft states that the IP hiding technique should be applied to use
cases where no consent has been requested and that obviously affects
those use cases in a negative way. This is the first extension to the IP
handling draft but it shows a direction which makes it reasonable to
assume that "consent" vs. "no consent" will diverge further for privacy
reasons. And that is something I *would* generally encourage...

However, it's only fair to take a step back to ensure that all use cases
can request user consent appropriately in order to escape those
restrictions. I don't think we can ignore that this hasn't happened so
far in browsers which all rely on the use of getUserMedia. That is not
appropriate for media receive only or pure data use cases. Thus, I would
like the IP handling document (or the extension draft) to require
implementations to allow for consent requests in a neutral way.

Cheers
Lennart

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:22:28 -0800

I understand the sentiment here, but we're a standards body that designs
protocols, and our ability to impose vague requirements on implementation
user interfaces is limited at best.

I prefer to maintain the current text in the document regarding consent,
which was the result of extensive WG discussions.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:42 AM Lennart Grahl <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 18:48:42 -0500

Agree with Justin.  The IETF is not the appropriate SDO to deal with
permissions.

---

From: Alexandre GOUAILLARD <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 17:20:58 +0700

+1 with justin.

-- 
Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President - CoSMo Software Consulting, Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard

   -