Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 16:10, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> [as an individual]
> 
> On 4/11/18 1:15 PM, Lennart Grahl wrote:
>> Since I haven't seen a satisfactory response so far, let me rephrase
>> this as a question: Can anyone explain to me why that approach is not
>> considered a valid alternative to getUserMedia?
> 
> 
> I think you're not getting a lot of response here because what you're proposing is well within the bounds of what the current document says. gUM is offered as a non-normative example, but that's all it is. If you believe that document changes are in order, perhaps a concrete proposal along the lines of "change the text <x> to be <y> instead" or "add text <z> at the end of section <q>" would produce more conversation.

As the draft’s Shepherd trying to figure out how to bring closure on this issue, I like to offer a summary:

There’s some discomfort with the use of the term “user consent” as well as the non-normative example provided for how to get it. The problem with changing the term to something else is "user consent" is a term of art; we can’t really qualify it with something like “informed”, because we’d need to explain what that means (and well GDPR …), and; frankly the term is used extensively in the other security draft that we pruned ip-handling from.  The problem with changing the non-normative example is that there don’t seem to be other attractive/realistic alternatives.

What I’d like to do is remind everybody that we pruned this draft from the other security drafts to allow it to be updated faster because it’s about a much narrower subject.  With this in mind and Bernard’s long list of questions, I would like to propose that we:*

1) Add another sentence (from Tim) that indicates there are other alternatives:

      Alternatively implementations can provide a separate
      mechanism to obtain user consent.

2) Progress the draft out of the WG.*

3) Update/Obsolete this draft, when a much superior alternative emerges.

spt

* Also "hold your nose" if you’re sad about this proposal but are willing to begrudgingly live with the rough consensus; it’s rough and we noted this in the Shepherd write-up.

** Remember that during the IETF LC we (or somebody in the wider IETF community) might come up with something during the IETF LC.