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

If this is for using something like a third party SFU, video server or MCU?
So is the goal to avoid terminating the encryption at these third party
servers?

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Fri., 30 Nov. 2018, 12:00 am Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no
wrote:

> 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*
> >
> > *
> >
>
>
>