Re: [rtcweb] Use-case draft updated

On 07/04/2012 07:06 PM, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> I am not sure what the consensus was regarding the changing of the
> wording from "eavesdropping" to "wiretapping" but after discussion
> with a few people at the interim my thinking was that it would be
> best to remove the statements from each use case regarding
> eavesdropping and replace it with bullets in section 4.1 for
> considerations which apply to all use cases. These should state that
> all media streams and data channels must be integrity and
> confidentiality protected.

Hi Andrew! I got the feeling that people disliked "eavesdropping", so I 
replaced it. I may have made a mistake and I would be glad to change again.

Regarding moving this to section 4.1, I did consider that, but 4.1 right 
now deals exclusively with network specific capabilities, and I felt a 
requirement on wiretapping/eavesdropping would not fit that well there. 
Again, I would be happy to change.

>
> I stated this in the following mail
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04595.html.

Yes, I noted that mail.

>
> It might be best to check with the chairs and/or AD's what is the
> best and acceptable wording given the RAVEN policy in RFC2804.

Chairs, any input?

>
> Regards Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Hakansson LK
>> Sent: 27 June 2012 13:43 To: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: [rtcweb]
>> Use-case draft updated
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> as already automatically announced, the use-case draft has been
>> updated. Extract from the change log:
>>
>> * Changed "eavesdropping" to "wiretapping" and referenced RFC2804.
>>
>> * Removed informal ref webrtc_req; that document has been abandoned
>> by the W3C webrtc WG.
>>
>> * Added use-case where one user is behind a FW that only allows
>> http; derived req. F37.
>>
>> * Changed F24 slightly; MUST-> SHOULD, inserted "available".
>>
>> * Added a clause to "Simple video communication service" saying
>> that the service provider monitors the quality of service, and
>> derived reqs F38 and A26.
>>
>> Most of the above are things that was documented in the minutes of
>> the Interim June 12th; I took the liberty to add some text (and
>> reqs A26/F38) on the service provider monitoring the QoE.
>>
>> Feedback and comments are most welcome.
>>
>> Also, Ekr has the task to deliver an Identity related use-case (as
>> discussed at the interim).
>>
>> Stefan _______________________________________________ rtcweb
>> mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb