Skip to main content

Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) for WebRTC
RFC 8833

Yes

(Alissa Cooper)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2016-05-03 for -03)
Should I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch be a normative reference, due to the citation in section 4?

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-04-28 for -03)
Please excuse my ignorance (pointers would be appreciated, if this is explained elsewhere): do RTP intermediary need to be updated to understand this spec?
If yes, how can you enforce requirements on "c-webrtc"?

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-05-04 for -03)
Note: There has been no answer to Russ Housley's Gen-ART review comments yet.

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-05-04 for -03)
I agree with Stephen's comments on the word confidentiality, but can't think of an alternate word.  I think text describing how this is limited would be helpful in the introduction.  The clearest (at least to me) description of what is meant by confidentiality doesn't appear until the security considerations section.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-05-04 for -03)

- 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 :-)

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)