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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 646A61312E6; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 11:34:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 3-pZDTalrwl1; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 11:34:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A412613125F; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 11:34:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x26JYBNv080060 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:34:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1551900854; bh=bb+GF/xvPmvmBdnu5dxlsvkE2sv4otu9TxTssD1KEvU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=TTyIewyVH+CMEWzVxIxDzs4OcUSmjAKfqiLm7JAfyO7gx909OyjW0JgypUgtgEuHR s0QeeE1pyWU3L9FJ/ZLscsWSK5c+ReslbqPZfbCFuCzraKC9QRE38IT0l5Qd4Dvyf5 9RSokWn+pdeZBFqeT3SoFG/leYeQpvrrpGbLDApA=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-security@ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org
References: <155137680815.28736.10104782585142415268.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABcZeBNoES+AeH2_9Ax+c8vTHYEend6huBWq8ypqv20PqUDZGA@mail.gmail.com> <B34AD329-4FE2-4561-9F8C-F8833A77E99F@kuehlewind.net>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <a9502bf3-20cc-a165-4162-4df73393d0fa@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:34:06 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B34AD329-4FE2-4561-9F8C-F8833A77E99F@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/UxrUswVAlEMEr1HWby8IDGLzEUQ>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-rtcweb-security-11=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 19:34:24 -0000

On 3/5/19 3:52 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> Hi Ekr,
>
> see below.
>
>> Am 28.02.2019 um 22:22 schrieb Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>;:
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>
> I will wait for more feedback from other ADs and then clear my discuss respectively. However, to be honest I also don’t quite fully understand the split between this doc and the sec-arch one. But maybe that just me...


One additional point regarding the publication status of this document 
to consider is that it is intended to inform not just IETF efforts in 
this space, but W3C efforts as well. From that inter-SDO collaboration 
perspective, I believe having it clear the higher bar of Standards Track 
is an important signal regarding the level of consensus and review it 
has received.

/a