Subject: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:42:09 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Removing my discuss. Will let Adam manage this from here.

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.