Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:00 AM Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-11: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-security/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think this document is clearly informational. Other RTCweb documents
> should
> refer this document informatively and only reference the sec arch doc
> normatively.
>

I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I will defer to the AD.


>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would have also expected some discussion about the risks to the user if
> the
> browser gets corrupted, as indicated by the trust model presented in
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch. Alternatively, this document could go in
> the
> appendix of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch instead.
>

Hmm... We generally assume that the browser is uncorrupted. If it is, it's
pretty much game over. Can you explain more about your position.