Re: [rtcweb] Conditions for long-term permissions grants

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

>  On 03/18/2015 03:11 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>> My conclusion of the discussion so far is that we do not have consensus
>> to change the gUM API to enable the application to specifically request
>> persistent permission, so I think we should simply change the Security
>> Architecture document requirement.
>>
>
>  I don't really think this gets the job done. The Security Arch document
> has been through IETF WG LC, so just changing it isn't really right
> either. I think we actually need to discuss this in some live forum,
> whether a telechat or a meeting.
>
>
> Is this based on needing more people to state an opinion on this point?
> (I think we have the options covered - either add a mechanism or delete
> the requirement; so far nobody's spoken up in favor of adding the
> mechanism).
>
>
As I thought I made clear in my initial email, my view is that we should
add a mechanism.



> Since this is an IETF document, and IETF is having a meeting next week,
> perhaps we should take the discussion there?
>

That's fine.

-Ekr