Subject: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:00:08 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-11: Discuss

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-security/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this document is clearly informational. Other RTCweb documents should
refer this document informatively and only reference the sec arch doc
normatively.

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

I would have also expected some discussion about the risks to the user if the
browser gets corrupted, as indicated by the trust model presented in
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch. Alternatively, this document could go in the
appendix of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch instead.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:22:39 -0800

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-security/

I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I will defer to the AD.

Hmm... We generally assume that the browser is uncorrupted. If it is, it's
pretty much game over. Can you explain more about your position.