Subject: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:37:59 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am balloting "yes", but I have a few minor comments:

Substantive Comments:

-2.2 : 
-- Why is a WebRTC gateway assumed to be a "compatible" endpoint rather
than a full endpoint? I recognize a gateway is different from a typical
end-user endpoint, but are there specific endpoint requirements that a
gateway is not likely to meet? (Feel free to say "it's documented in the
gateway draft...." :-) )

-- "In this case, similar security considerations as for Javascript may
be needed; however, since such APIs are not defined or referenced here,
this document cannot give any specific rules for those interfaces."
I am confused by this sentence, since I don't see any security
considerations specific to Javascript in this draft, either.

-7
-- list item 2: Is it an open question whether a signaling gateway is
needed for interacting with SIP devices?
-- Last paragraph: This is specifically about non-browser endpoints,
right? As written, it seems to weaken the previous paragraph about
browser endpoints, since the draft previously said the term "endpoint"
includes both browsers and non-browsers.

-9, 2nd bullet: "Privacy concerns MUST be satisfied..."
Is that MAY really intended as normative, or is a statement of fact? If
normative, what actor(s) does it constrain? Also, if it is normative, the
clause "the APIs should be available" seems to weaken the MUST. 

Editorial Comments:

-2.3, last paragraph: The paragraph is a single, convoluted sentence that
is hard to parse. (It's also a comma splice). Please consider breaking
into multiple simpler sentences.

-3, first paragraph: This is also convoluted and hard to parse.

-7, list item 1: The citiation to [3264] seems misplaced. It describes
the offer/answer model, not SIP in general. I suggest moving the citation
to after the word "semantics".