Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-11
review-ietf-rtcweb-security-11-opsdir-lc-clarke-2019-02-12-00

I have been assigned to review this document on behalf of the Ops directorate. 
In general, I found the document well-written, but the reason I marked it as
not ready as I was confused as to its standards track trajectory.  I do not see
any kind of inter-operable standard being defined here.  On my reading --
before I noticed it was standards track -- it felt informational.  While it
does set out a threat model for the browser, I struggle to see how that needs
to be standardized.

On that threat model note, the abstract indicates that the WebRTC threat model
will be laid out, but section 3 defines a more general browser threat model.

Beyond those items, I noticed various nits and other small items when reading
the document.  Most broadly, I feel this document would benefit from a
terminology section to define acronyms such as ICE, TURN, STUN, VoIP, etc. 
Additionally, in section 3.1, the document refers to "scripts" in a general
way.  While the implication is JavaScript code that will run in a browser, I
think that kind of context setting might be made more explicit in a terminology
section.

Other nits are mentioned below on a section-by-section basis.

Section 1:

s/implementated/implemented/

===

Section 3.2:

s/provide a escape hatch/provide an escape hatch/

===

Section 4.2:

s/signficant/significant/

===

Section 4.2.3:

s/ threats is less severe/threats are less severe/

===

Section 4.3:

s/ The calling service is is/The calling service is/

===

Section 4.3.2.1:

OLD:

  (a) the browser to trusted UI to provide the name and

I don't grok this sentence fragment.  There seems to be a verb missing, and I'm
not sure what your intent is here.

===

Section 4.3.2.2:

s/e.g., read aloud over the the voice/e.g., read aloud over the voice/

s/However, it it is well-known/However, it is well-known/