[wg/webrtc] Web Real-Time Communications Working Group Charter

[dontcallmedom]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter

If applicable: diff from previous charter

The updated charter aligns it with the latest charter template changes and updates the list of deliverables.

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• Existing
  • [*] Existing WG recharter

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, security, and TAG. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach:

Known or potential areas of concern:

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...) https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-charter/issues

Anything else we should think about as we review? N/A

cc @aboba @alvestrand @jan-ivar

[simoneonofri]

Hi Dom,

For the Security part, I am reading the documentation, I would put as must the Security Considerations sections and in particular, always a reference to the general Security Considerations from IETF. Let me know if I can start a PR for that.

Where I would also consider the case of a Threat Actor who might develop an Agent that leverages this technology for its capabilities (e.g., https://beefproject.com).

It is also interesting to note that (after a quick test) it is possible to understand the capabilities of my end-user device even if I have not permitted to access the microphone, etc. (e.g., https://www.webrtc-experiment.com/DetectRTC/ code here https://github.com/muaz-khan/DetectRTC).

On the W3C Identity for WebRTC 1.0 cc'ing @hlflanagan @wseltzer @asr-enid @timcappalli @marcoscaceres @samuelgoto

Thank you,

Simone

[dontcallmedom]

@simoneonofri - re using "MUST", my impression is that we've stayed away from using RFC2119 language in charters since they're not specifications; if we were to change that tack, I would want it to be discussed outside this particular rechartering, esp. since it is a mostly administrative rechartering of a group.

The IETF security considerations for WebRTC are linked from the WebRTC spec itself; they don't apply necessarily to all WebRTC Working Group specs though, so I'm not sure why or how they should be linked from the WG charter.

Issues with hardware detection in WebRTC (or more specifically, Media Capture and Streams) have a long history, and have seen recent spec improvements (not yet reflected in all implementations though).

If you do see potential changes to the charter, a PR would help for discussion indeed; thanks!

[simoneonofri]

@simoneonofri - re using "MUST", my impression is that we've stayed away from using RFC2119 language in charters since they're not specifications; if we were to change that tack, I would want it to be discussed outside this particular rechartering, esp. since it is a mostly administrative rechartering of a group.

Ok, so maybe using "will" (same wording used in FedID).

The IETF security considerations for WebRTC are linked from the WebRTC spec itself; they don't apply necessarily to all WebRTC Working Group specs though, so I'm not sure why or how they should be linked from the WG charter.

yes I didn't it it meant at the charter level but at the specs level.

Issues with hardware detection in WebRTC (or more specifically, Media Capture and Streams) have a long history, and have seen recent spec improvements (not yet reflected in all implementations though).

thanks for the pointer!

[himorin]

• Coordination section seems to have similar as charter-template, but a bit old one? I'd propose to update the latter half part with template text
• history table lacks links to several previous charters, and also several rows listed in past charters are missing (I'm not sure we should complete all here or not although)...

[dontcallmedom]

I've aligned the coordination section with the template and completed the history section with links to previous charters

[ruoxiran]

APA is happy with this charter.

[himorin]

no comment or request from i18n

[plehegar]

no comment or request from PING

[plehegar]

Advance notice.

[simoneonofri]

[added the label from the past message]