Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

N29: A way to obtain user consent for one-way media and data use cases #14

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

N29: A way to obtain user consent for one-way media and data use cases #14

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -141,6 +141,9 @@ <h3>File Sharing</h3>
be supported by servers as well as user agents.
N15 It must be possible to support data exchange
in a worker.
N29 The application must be able to request user consent
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Request user consent" is an implementation, not a requirement. Please rephrase what the requirement is.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it just the word "request"? What about replacing it with "obtain"?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should also consider allowing the exposure of local IP not via user prompt but in "out-of-band" methods like browser Enterprise policy

for one-way media and data only use cases in a
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This section is "file sharing", so "one-way media" should be broken out in a separate use case.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By that, do you mean add the requirement to "Video Conferencing with a Central Server" as well?

I'm also wondering if it's clear enough what "user consent" is referring to. What are your opinions?

non-discriminating way.
</pre>
References:
<ol>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -367,6 +370,9 @@ <h3>Requirements</h3>
rendered.
N28 TBD: restrictions on the application so as to
prevent unauthorized recording of the session.
N29 The application must be able to request user consent
for one-way media and data only use cases in a
non-discriminating way.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does "non-discriminating way" mean?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This can easily be misinterpreted as one-way media and data should not be allowed without user consent. This is about better connections (by exposing IP addresses), but it's not clear what the user is consenting to

Copy link
Author

@lgrahl lgrahl Jul 16, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does "non-discriminating way" mean?

The intent is to ensure that there is at least one use case neutral (thus, non-discriminating) way to request user consent. Maybe I should rephrase? Any suggestions?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This can easily be misinterpreted as one-way media and data should not be allowed without user consent. This is about better connections (by exposing IP addresses), but it's not clear what the user is consenting to

I don't understand that. When we're talking about consent, it usually means the form of consent as described by the IP handling draft which is what this is targeting. Should I clarify this? Suggestions?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree with @henbos, this needs to talk specifically about IP address enumeration, not the use cases (most of which don't need IP address enumeration)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, perfectly fine with that as it also points out more clearly what concrete use cases it targets. I'll /cc @steely-glint just in case. Justin, could you make a concrete proposal that would work for you? I'll happily update the PR with your framing.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"N29: Support for one-way media and data applications between browsers inside the same LAN", which basically reduces to finding an alternative to mDNS for this environment.

You could also call out "NXX: Ability for one-way media and data applications to control the network interface used by ICE" as a separate requirement, which may point at a different solution. This particular problem largely reduces to a special case consideration to route real-time traffic directly when a VPN is in use, and may be solvable via its own targeted solution.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm reasonably happy with "N29: Support for one-way media and data applications between browsers inside the same LAN" but I have 2 minor issues.

  1. I'd like to emphasize that the goal is the media should stay on that LAN, otherwise TURN fits the bill.
  2. LAN is a bit vague. We may be talking about anything from a local wifi to a whole corp network. (I'm thinking of the multisegment star network that traditionally covers the whole 4,400 acres of the burning man site - which isn't obviously a LAN, or the 15000 participant network that CCC spin up at congress.)

I don't agree with your framing of NXX as a VPN problem - it also addresses outages - so lets discuss that in a different issue.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yea, or a corp network that uses MPLS and site-site VPN to make it all look like 1 big LAN. Is there a standard name for a "continuously virtual connected not NATed network" ?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perhaps we could add 'p2p' to 1), e.g., "N29: Support for one-way media and data applications to connect P2P to other browsers inside the same LAN". Definition of what exactly is meant by LAN is probably better left as sub-bullets.

</pre>
</section>
</section>
Expand Down