Re: [rtcweb] Use-case draft updated

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Wed, 04 July 2012 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 A39F521F86B2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UGq-UafISXvG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA2B21F870E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 612441EB85FD; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:06:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.34]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:06:50 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Use-case draft updated
Thread-Index: AQHNVGJjS5A138f8RE2fuOSxPXLcSpcZWeyg
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:06:49 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF03603B@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <4FEAFFBA.8020403@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FEAFFBA.8020403@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.27.255.61]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use-case draft updated
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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 Jul 2012 17:06:41 -0000

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.

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

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.

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