Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

Sean said:

"1) Add another sentence (from Tim) that indicates there are other
alternatives:

      Alternatively implementations can provide a separate
      mechanism to obtain user consent.

2) Progress the draft out of the WG.*

3) Update/Obsolete this draft, when a much superior alternative emerges."

[BA] This seems like the best we can do at the moment.

With respect to alternatives, they have been explored and will no doubt
continue to be.

But it's not clear (at least to me) what metrics can be used to determine
whether an implemented alternative is "superior".







On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 11, 2018, at 16:10, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > [as an individual]
> >
> > On 4/11/18 1:15 PM, Lennart Grahl wrote:
> >> Since I haven't seen a satisfactory response so far, let me rephrase
> >> this as a question: Can anyone explain to me why that approach is not
> >> considered a valid alternative to getUserMedia?
> >
> >
> > I think you're not getting a lot of response here because what you're
> proposing is well within the bounds of what the current document says. gUM
> is offered as a non-normative example, but that's all it is. If you believe
> that document changes are in order, perhaps a concrete proposal along the
> lines of "change the text <x> to be <y> instead" or "add text <z> at the
> end of section <q>" would produce more conversation.
>
> As the draft’s Shepherd trying to figure out how to bring closure on this
> issue, I like to offer a summary:
>
> There’s some discomfort with the use of the term “user consent” as well as
> the non-normative example provided for how to get it. The problem with
> changing the term to something else is "user consent" is a term of art; we
> can’t really qualify it with something like “informed”, because we’d need
> to explain what that means (and well GDPR …), and; frankly the term is used
> extensively in the other security draft that we pruned ip-handling from.
> The problem with changing the non-normative example is that there don’t
> seem to be other attractive/realistic alternatives.
>
> What I’d like to do is remind everybody that we pruned this draft from the
> other security drafts to allow it to be updated faster because it’s about a
> much narrower subject.  With this in mind and Bernard’s long list of
> questions, I would like to propose that we:*
>
> 1) Add another sentence (from Tim) that indicates there are other
> alternatives:
>
>       Alternatively implementations can provide a separate
>       mechanism to obtain user consent.
>
> 2) Progress the draft out of the WG.*
>
> 3) Update/Obsolete this draft, when a much superior alternative emerges.
>
> spt
>
> * Also "hold your nose" if you’re sad about this proposal but are willing
> to begrudgingly live with the rough consensus; it’s rough and we noted this
> in the Shepherd write-up.
>
> ** Remember that during the IETF LC we (or somebody in the wider IETF
> community) might come up with something during the IETF LC.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>