Clarification: Call for adoption - use case for "Trusted application, untrusted intermediary"

In this call for adoption, I have counted 11 particiants, but only been
able to match three clearly to a position (1 yes and 2 no).

If anyone wishes to state a position on adoption of this use case,
please do so ASAP.

NOTE: The most relevant comment was probably "The requirements as
written are hopelessly vague"; I hope we have a volunteer to propose a
better requirements statement (hopefully as a PR against "scenarios").

We might end up with multiple use cases from that exercise.


Den 20.11.2018 09:59, skrev Harald Alvestrand:
> **
> 
> *From the Lyon summary of actions:“The WG adopts the E2E use case where
> we trust the application, but not the relay. (to be verified on the list)”*
> 
> *
> 
> The question is whether we should include in our “NV Scenarios” document
> the scenario currently described in
> https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-nv-use-cases/#securecommunications*- where
> the application (Web page) is fully trusted, but uses a relay service
> that should not be able to decode the transmitted media.
> 
> 
> The consensus in the meeting in Lyon was that this use case should be
> included; this call serves to verify that consensus on the list.
> 
> Unless objections are raised and verified to be widely held in the
> discussion, the chairs will assume that the WG has consensus to include
> this use case.
> 
> If you object to this document being adopted, please say so to the list
> before or on Wednesday, November 28.
> 
> *Harald, for the chairs*
> 
> *
>

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2018 12:59:30 UTC