- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:35:22 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
The security of WebRTC is very weak without this, so the draft is certainly not ready for CR if this part is not ready for CR. > On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:35 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > As we are getting closer to clearing our issue lists for webrtc-pc and > thus hopefully moving to Candidate Recommendation soon, and looking at > the overall rough implementation status of the spec, it strikes me that > at the moment the identity mechanism of the spec is one part for which I > have very little clarity on implementations plan beyond Firefox. > > > Given that part of the CR process is to demonstrate that each of the > feature in the spec will be getting two independent implementations, I'm > wondering how likely we feel we will achieve this for that part of the spec. > > In particular, if our current impression is that it is unlikely, it > might be useful to mark it at risk [1] - beyond the small process > efficiency it gives (not needing to go back to CR to remove it from the > spec if we can't demonstrate interop), I think it would also serve as a > useful way to draw attention to the community that they may voice their > concerns one way or the other on the lack of adoption of this. > > Thoughts? > > (I've raised https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/1074 to track this) > > Dom > > 1. https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#candidate-rec >
Received on Friday, 17 March 2017 02:35:51 UTC