Subject: [rtcweb] Protocol Action: 'Transports for WebRTC' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 06:43:41 -0700

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Transports for WebRTC'
  (draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Real-Time Communication in
WEB-browsers Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell and Alissa
Cooper.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/

Technical Summary

  This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC,
  including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes
  such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes.

Working Group Summary

  Nothing particularly controversial in this spec. It is largely just a 
  pointer to other specifications saying if you do WebRTC, then you need 
  to what RFC X,Y, and Z says. 

  Based on the WGLC comments, the chairs suggest adding an RFC Ed note 
  to include an informative reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-return 
  however there is not WG consensus to make this a MUST or SHOULD 
  implement. (Cleary nothing forbids implementing it so it is already an 
  MAY implement)

Document Quality

  Much of this is implemented in chrome and firefox which share a 
  significant amount of code with respect to this so some parts of it 
  has 2 implementations, some parts 1, and some none. 

Personnel

  Cullen Jennings is the document shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the 
  responsible AD.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:59:15 -0400

Congrats! Another draft has progressed down the road:
https://giphy.com/gifs/car-reactiongifs-mrw-T4YX44tlqOKaI/fullscreen

spt

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 09:43, The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:48:49 +0200

> https://giphy.com/gifs/car-reactiongifs-mrw-T4YX44tlqOKaI/fullscreen

Hooray!

It is now part of RFC Editor's cluster 238, a giant snarl of dependencies:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C238

An outstanding item here is the -security drafts; do we have any updated
status on those?

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.