Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usage for Consent Freshness
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
(Ben Campbell) Yes
Comment (2015-08-04 for -15)
Alissa Cooper Yes
(Spencer Dawkins) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Alia Atlas) No Objection
Deborah Brungard No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for putting up with my partly silly discuss/comments.
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
Barry Leiba No Objection
Comment (2015-07-28 for -15)
A couple of very minor comments only: FWIW, I think rtcweb-security-arch need only be an informative reference; it seems only explanatory. I also think that about RFC 6263. -- Section 5.1 -- A full ICE implementation obtains consent to send using ICE. After ICE concludes on a particular candidate pair and whenever the endpoint sends application data on that pair consent MUST be maintained following the procedure described in this document. I don't understand the "MUST" here, given that Section 4 says this is "an optional extension". Why "MUST", then, rather than "can be"?
(Terry Manderson) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection
Comment (2015-08-03 for -15)
Thank you for your response to the SecDir review. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05760.html