Protocol Action: 'WebRTC Data Channel Establishment Protocol' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-09.txt)

The IESG <> Thu, 08 January 2015 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BDA1A7004; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 06:39:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6VXA1eSO333Z; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 06:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7FFF1A8746; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 06:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'WebRTC Data Channel Establishment Protocol' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-09.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.0.p6
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 06:39:33 -0800
Archived-At: <>
Cc: rtcweb mailing list <>, rtcweb chair <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:39:48 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'WebRTC Data Channel Establishment Protocol'
  (draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-09.txt) as Proposed Standard

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

The IESG contact persons are Richard Barnes and Alissa Cooper.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary:

This document specifies the non-media data transport aspects of the WebRTC  framework.  It provides an architectural overview of how the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is used in the WebRTC context as a generic transport service.

Working Group Summary:

There was early discussion of the stacking order, but there has been no significant controversy since that was fixed.  There have been a number of discussion on how to manage particular aspects of the larger context (e.g. WebRTC-level congestion control, since SCTP manages congestion control at the association level) and this has played a part in those, but not in any way that mde it the focus of controversy.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?\

There are implmentations of previous versions of this document, and we expect updates to them to the final version.  Vendor support seems solid.  This document did not require expert review of the types noted. 

The document shepherd is Ted Hardie; the responsible Area Director is Richard Barnes.