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

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 00:32:06 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- 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.)

- 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?

- "clever arrangement of mirrors" - that is a nice way to
explain the futility of DRM :-)

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 00:36:43 +1000

> 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.

> non-browser "access" (origination really) of media on the

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.