Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 4 May 2016 at 17:32, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> - I suspect the term "confidential" as used here will turn out
> to mislead or confuse some folks. The meaning is clear if one
> reads the draft, but of course many people will just read some
> stackexchange answer. It's probably too late to try change
> that unless someone has a good term beginning with "c" to use
> for c-werbrtc. The potential for confusion I think will be
> that the other label might be assumed to not use a good
> confidentiality mechanism on the wire, so folks might get
> concerned that e.g. their DataChannel stuff can be read by a
> middlebox.  (I just mention this in case the concern is
> either new or has been bubbling up in the WG, feel entirely
> free to ignore me if you want.)

Alissa raised the same point in her review.  I believe that the
conclusion was what we have.  I agree that as a very selective
confidentiality, it's potentially misleading.  In practice, this is a
feature that will require really good understanding of how this all
fits together, so I'm not concerned about readership misunderstanding.

> - I forget how the screen sharing issue for WebRTC was
> resolved. In any case, do the handling of screen sharing and
> c-webrtc interact? Do you need to explain that there's some
> non-browser "access" (origination really) of media on the
> screen-sharer's machine?

Screen sharing looks the same as other media in this regard.  Of
course, screen sharing is still basically inaccessible in browsers due
to the huge problems it engenders.