Subject: [Slim] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-ietf-slim-00-06: (with BLOCK)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:54:39 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-slim-00-06: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-slim/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if the security and privacy considerations associated 
with email and WebRTC are so totally different that it might really 
be better to handle language separately for each. 

I'm also a bit leery of emergency calls being used to justify 
handling language in a way that exposes privacy unnecessarily.
(I don't mean that language preference is highly sensitive,
as it's usually not, but I think there is a meme where emergency
services are used to justify doing all sorts of stuff without
security, so the call is more likely to get through.)

The first bit was a comment I made back in July and I don't 
think I saw any response. (But I may have forgotten.) 

We can chat about it on the call.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:50:42 -0400

Folks, I haven't seen any response to Stephen's comment.  Can we get
some discussion going to close this off?

For my part:

I certainly don't believe that Stephen's first paragraph provides a
reason to split the work -- if there are security/privacy
considerations that are specific to the two realms, they can easily be
called out that way in the document(s).  The important reason to keep
the work together is to coordinate the language labelling and
negotiation mechanisms and formats.

On the second point, I'll note that emergency calls aren't the only
use case -- and likely not even the main use case -- for this; it's
likely that call centers are a more significant use case.  I don't
think there's any danger in this work of emergency calling being used
as an excuse for privacy leakage, but if someone can see a path where
that might happen, charter wording to head it off would be a nice
contribution.  Stephen, as it's your comment, I'd like you to have a
stab at wording you'd like to see for that.

Barry

> charter-ietf-slim-00-06: Block
...