Subject: Re: [Ice] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on charter-ietf-ice-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:23:43 -0500

On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:58, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The charter is fine as-is, but I would have expected some mention of
> security as the referenced RFC goes into detail about a number of
> possible attacks.  I put this down as no objection since much of the
> solution will rely on the protocol this is used for - WebRTC or SIP in
> the case of the referenced RFC.  As long as security is addressed in
> drafts produced, maybe mention isn't needed in the charter.

Hi Kathleen,

IMO, RFC 5245, and related drafts, have historically addressed security 
in some depth. I don't expect anything in this charter is likely to 
change that. We could add some text about security, but I think it would 
fall into the "all WGs need to address security" sort of thing.

Is there something specific you had in mind?

Thanks!

Ben.