Re: Use of getDefaultIceServers

On 01/28/2019 04:03 PM, Henrik Boström wrote:
> If using the Chrome admin tools or "just working out of the box like a
> proxy" is a hard requirement then my suggestions are not applicable
> and we don't have to spend any more time on them.
> But from my point of view it still sounds like an application-specific
> problem.
>
> "In the getDefaultIceServers proposal, the IBM network administrator
> can configure the user's browser through normal Chrome admin tools,
> the Cisco application could read the configuration using
> getDefaultIceServers, and the Google host wouldn't have to care about
> anything at all."
>
> The Cisco application could, instead of using getDefaultIceServers(),
> have an IBM-specific setting specified by an IBM administrator who has
> an account on the Cisco website. Cisco would know that an IBM user is
> connecting either because the user is signed in to the website or
> because the user clicked an IBM-specific URL
> (cisco.com/meeting/ibm-user/google-conference-code
> <http://cisco.com/meeting/ibm-user/google-conference-code>). The
> setting could either 1) simply say what the ICE server is, or 2) say
> what IBM server to ask what the ICE server is. With 2) you could
> dynamically get different ICE servers depending on your location,
> server loads, time of day, etc. Throw in usernames into the mix and
> you could get even more creative, running all the IBM-specific logic
> you want that neither Cisco or Google knows anything about.
>
> The only assumption I'm making is that the conferencing service cares
> about this use case and that the administrator has an account on the
> conferencing service. The rest is an application-specific problem.

You're making the further assumption that the network service
administrator at IBM knows or cares that the Cisco website exists,
rather than making a generic configuration that covers all applications
that read getDefaultIceServers.

Furthermore, you're making the assumption that the Google host (who has
to give the URL to the user who's calling in) knows that the user is
currently on the IBM network.

If all those assumptions are true, other solutions work. But I don't
think they will be true in very many cases.