Subject: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 19:40:43 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Should I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch be a normative reference, due to the
citation in section 4?

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 13:23:32 +1000

> Should I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch be a normative reference, due to the

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], ...

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 22:28:36 -0500

> changed to: Peer authentication, such as that provided by Section X of

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?

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 13:42:38 +1000

On 4 May 2016 at 13:28, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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?

That's the right question.  It's the latter, so let's just elevate
this to normative.  It might be that this blocks publication, but
think that the world can do without another RFC for a little longer.