Return-Path: <ben@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 77BD812D7BA;
 Tue,  3 May 2016 20:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996]
 autolearn=ham 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 hGkHCZcCqF6P; Tue,  3 May 2016 20:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
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 2FE4912B05E;
 Tue,  3 May 2016 20:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.18] (cpe-70-119-246-39.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.246.39])
 (authenticated bits=0)
 by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u443SabS017983
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
 Tue, 3 May 2016 22:28:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host
 cpe-70-119-246-39.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.246.39] claimed to be [10.0.1.18]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 22:28:36 -0500
Message-ID: <F72E0292-0069-4606-9998-4EAE19475D34@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXef6uO0ZVZyiR5A8EeEAAGsLVJ9T8r4-QxS-qKAFWLZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160504024043.8242.33067.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <CABkgnnXef6uO0ZVZyiR5A8EeEAAGsLVJ9T8r4-QxS-qKAFWLZA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/jbWGQBCfaUaL4RoJzozRT4jp9hg>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn@ietf.org, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>,
 "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>,
 rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03: (with
 COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 04 May 2016 03:28:51 -0000

On 3 May 2016, at 22:23, Martin Thomson wrote:

> On 4 May 2016 at 12:40, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> Should I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch be a normative reference, due to 
>> the
>> citation in section 4?
>
> That was intended largely as a "such as", would be clearer if it were
> changed to: Peer authentication, such as that provided by Section X of
> [I-D.ietf...arch], ...

Possibly--but do you expect this to be a situation where a webrtc peer 
can pick from any number of available peer authentication mechanisms in 
addition to what is in security-arch, or is this pretty much it?