Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Sean.  I finally concluded that was the intent.  And I think 
technically it says so.
If you could look at making that more clear early, it would probably 
help those readers who are not as familiar with the cited W3C API.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/28/2022 10:47 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2022, at 13:49, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review Date: 2022-03-27
>> IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-05
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>
>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
>> However, there are some issues that should be considered before final approval.
>>
>> Major issues: None
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>     I found myself confused as a reader about one aspect of this document  The
>>     document seems to describe both the Interface to the JSEP and the details
>>     of what the underlying system must do in response to JSEP operations.  The
>>     later is described very well and clearly.  The former is described quite
>>     vaguely.  I suspect that the assumption is that the required parameters are
>>     described in the W3C documents.  But it is hard to tell, and the only
>>     formal reference is a vague citation in the introduction to an outdated W3C
>>     specification.  A little more clarity on how an implementor is supposed to
>>     know what actual interface objects, methods, and parameters they need to
>>     provide would be helpful.  Also, the reference should be updated to
>>     whatever is the current W3C specification.
> 
> Will check on updating the reference. I would be floored if we couldn’t point to it.
> 
> The basic idea here is that the W3C WebRTC spec is API and this is the protocol spec.
> 
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>>
>>
>