Re: [rtcweb] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-21

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 17 August 2017 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EADC1324C6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsJFNuiWBihn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp73.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (smtp73.ord1d.emailsrvr.com [184.106.54.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA81C12426E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2CB7340060; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp2.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 52D8340079; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([UNAVAILABLE]. [209.52.88.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:13:23 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_23BD1A4B-47A4-4F53-B179-843B5C9BAAE3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <150293290297.12432.15822575176336895893@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:13:20 -0700
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep.all@ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-Id: <65A7933F-39BC-4E21-B5D2-9F9BB61B7ED7@iii.ca>
References: <150293290297.12432.15822575176336895893@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Carlos Martinez <carlosm3011@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/1iXtCIgPtcIHAbmLwLUwgNnJxhw>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-21
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:13:26 -0000

> On Aug 16, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Carlos Martinez <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Carlos Martinez
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
> the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
> in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> Noting that I'm certainly not an expert on the subject matter, I've found this
> document to be READY. I found it well-written, it contains plenty of detailed
> examples (which I believe are really important for API and programming-heavy
> documents), and includes plenty of references as well.
> 
> Please do not forget to remove "Appendix B.  Change log".
> 
> A minor observation, not even a nit, is that the text in the Security
> Considerations "While formally the JSEP interface is an API, it is better to
> think of it is an Internet protocol, with the JS being untrustworthy from the
> perspective of the endpoint. " could be more clear.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> /Carlos
> 


Thanks Carlos, I'll have a look at the things you mention ( https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/791 <https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/791> and https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/792 <https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/792> for tracking )