Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 19:47:08 +0000

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for the comments.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Section 5:
> 
> The draft claims that "Currently, all WebRTC video is assumed to be
> interactive" and makes a reference to [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports], but
> the referred draft does not contain any explanation regarding this. Is
> this some kind of well known fact in WebRTC circles? If so, is it
> documented somewhere?

The shepherd write-up covered this topic in part:

   IETF LC discussion resulted in minor edits and resolution of one issue.
   The issue arose when Magnus Westerlund asked the (seemingly simple)
   question of how a browser determines whether WebRTC video is interactive.

   The answer turns out to be that the browser doesn't do that - all WebRTC
   video (and actually all media) is interactive for a WebRTC application
   running in a browser because the WebRTC browser API can't specify that
   video (or media) is non-interactive.   In addition to explaining that in
   this draft, the next version (-13) of the WebRTC transports draft
   (draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports) will state that all WebRTC media is
   interactive.

There is agreed-to text for the WebRTC transports draft, so I'm a bit surprised
that the revised (-13) version of that draft hasn't appeared yet.   I'm cc:'ing
the RTCWEB WG mailing list to (gently) remind Harald to revise and post that
draft, soon please ;-).

I would suggest that Spencer promise not to announce IESG approval
of this tsvwg-rtcweb-qos draft until that necessary version of the WebRTC
transports draft is posted.

> Section 8:
> 
> Is this really required to be in the document? The shepherd writeup does
> explain the rationale for the downrefs.

This downref explanation was added based on a "show your work" rationale -
part of the context on is that there has been some recent discussion in TSVWG
about a possible revision to RFC 4594, one of the downref-ed RFCs. 

If the IESG would like to see Section 8 removed, that won't be a problem, 
but I'd prefer to see guidance on this from the IESG as a whole.

Thanks,
--David (as draft shepherd).