Subject: [rtcweb] Transport -15 submitted, still some issues

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 12:45:55 +0200

I have submitted -15 and closed those issues that I believe it resolves.
There are six left in the tracker: One I forgot (#40), one raised today
in the IESG (#41), and Andy's "RETURN reference" issue (#42), as well as
3 issues where I suggested "no change" as a resolution.

Comments welcome!

Note - I believe #41 and #42 are technical changes, so should formally
require IESG re-processing. I believe the others are editorial in
nature, so can be done without a new IESG pass.

Harald

---

From: Andy Hutton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 13:40:16 +0100

Harald,

I don't think that #42 is really a technical change can you explain why why
you think it is?

The referencing of -return- was mentioned in te AD evaluation by Alissa see
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg15943.html

Andy

On Thursday, 4 August 2016, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked] <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:05:27 +0200

Den 04. aug. 2016 14:40, skrev Andy Hutton:
> Harald,
> 
> I don't think that #42 is really a technical change can you explain why
> why you think it is?
> 

Because it introduces two new drafts that have to be understood in order
to completely understand the specification, one of which is expired.

While these are at MAY strength, I don't see how it's editorial.

> The referencing of -return- was mentioned in te AD evaluation by Alissa
> see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg15943.html

I can't see -return- in the referenced message; where do you see it?

> 
> Andy
> 
> On Thursday, 4 August 2016, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:06:08 +0200

> see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg15943.html

Yes. There was no determination by the chairs after that on the issue,
as far as I can tell.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:43:15 -0700

Thank you, Harald, for processing all the comments so efficiently.

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:45 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

For #41, Mirja has suggested the following text:

"For transport of media, secure RTP is used.  The details of the profile of RTP used are described in "RTP Usage“ [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage], which mandates the use of a circuit breaker [draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17] and congestion control (see [draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09] for further guidance).“

This is non-normative text suggested in a non-blocking comment, and it’s up to the WG to decide whether to include it. But whether or not it gets included, if the text is along the lines that she suggests then the document will not have to be re-processed by the IESG.

For #42, the issue is mentioned in the shepherd write-up <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/shepherdwriteup/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/shepherdwriteup/>>, so the IESG has already had visibility into it. My comment in AD evaluation was that I wanted to see the text added to the document, rather than included as an RFC Editor’s note. I believe the shepherd write-up indicates that the chairs believe there is consensus to include some non-normative text about this. So I don’t think this needs to go back to the IESG if it is added assuming the return bit is non-normative, but I do think whatever text the WG settles on should be included in the next rev before this doc goes to the RFC Editor.

Thanks,
Alissa

> [email-masked]

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:46:25 -0700

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:45 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 

Apologies, before I sent this I failed to see that Mirja changed her ballot position from COMMENT to DISCUSS. So this issue requires a resolution before the document can be approved for publication.

Alissa

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 07:05:13 -0700

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 

… and she has changed ballot positions again back to COMMENT before the telechat, so I will approve this for publication with a point raised to await the resolution of the outstanding issues.

Alissa

> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>

---

From: Andy Hutton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:42:51 +0100

> While these are at MAY strength, I don't see how it's editorial.

Ok understood it is not just editorial however I am not suggesting any
change to currently specified procedures only that the procedures are
correctly referenced.  As I pointed out in my original WGLC comment *
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg15900.html) the
current text regarding how TURN servers are discovered is in my opinion
insufficient.

I think describing correctly how TURN servers are discovered is an
important aspect of the transports draft.

The fact that the -return- draft has expired and the fact that the meeting
time in Berlin in which we were supposed to discuss it was cancelled is a
bit frustrating. I spoke to Ben Schwartz in Berlin and my understanding was
that he intends to update the draft. If RETURN is going to be implemented
then it is I believe important that transports mentions it.

If on the other hand RETURN is not going to be implemented and the draft
abandoned then this is also something that should be discussed in the WG.