Subject: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:16:22 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your citation to ICE is to 5245-bis, but at least the JSEP editor
consensus was that WebRTC depended on 5245, so this needs to be resolved
one way or the other.

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

This document seems rather long on philosophy (justifying MTI,
the freed to innovate material in S 4.) I would remove all this.

S 2.4.
Why do you have two terminology sections? I would merge them.

S 3.
The diagrams here seem to assume a federation model that I
generally don't see used with WebRTC. So, for instance,
the on-the-wire protocols arrow on page 9. Who does that?
This also applies to "a commonly imagined model"

I would say HTTP(S) in this diagram.

You should probably list DTLS, SCTP, and SDP in this section. It's
not like we haven't decided we need them.

"The functionality groups that are needed in the browser can be
 specified, more or less from the bottom up, as:
 ...
 Connection management: ... SIP and Jingle/XMPP belong in this
category."

As far as I know, nothing in this layer is specified in WebRTC
or implemented in the browser, so this doesn't seem to make
sense.

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 19:44:37 +0000

Hi,

>Your citation to ICE is to 5245-bis, but at least the JSEP editor consensus was that WebRTC depended on 5245, so this needs to be resolved one way or the other.

Keep in mind that, no matter what draft-rtcweb-overview and draft-rtcweb-jsep explicitly say, both specs reference 5245bis *IMPLICITLY*, e.g., via draft-mmusic-bundle, draft-ice-trickle etc... As I have indicated in the past, it would cause confusion to reference both.

So, I think we shall reference 5245-bis everywhere (I also thought we already decided no that in the past)-

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:02:41 -0500

> On Apr 23, 2017, at 14:44, Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

/* bike shed alert: 
/* 
/* Assuming you’re of the mind that a bis/updates draft is
/* signaling to all implementors of the original RFC that the
/* intention is that all implementations be updated then it’s
/* a bit more than implicit.

spt