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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

bump

> On Apr 26, 2022, at 21:39, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi! I would really love to give our AD a revised version of this I-D soon.
> 
>> On Apr 17, 2022, at 12:37, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> I feel very strongly that we must reference a stable version or else there is no way to know what is reviewed. The w3c spec was not approved before and was a draft
>>> so it was hard but at this point I think the REC version is the correct references. 
>> 
>> I don't object to referencing a specific version - I actually agree.
>> 
>> My question is why JSEP uses an INFORMATIVE WebRTC reference WITH a version, while other RTCWEB RFCs use NORMATIVE WebRTC references WITHOUT a version...
> 
> I didn’t do an exhaustive search, but I did note that
> RFCs 8825, 8827, and 8834 refer to the the W3C specification normatively as follows:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/
> There is no chance that there is any energy whatsoever to go back and change those three to refer to a specific version. So I think we will need to call those done.
> 
> For this I-D, I originally submitted the following PR to update the reference to the final recommendation.  I have updated that PR to also move the reference to be normative. See:
> 
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/1024
> 
> Is there any objection to moving the reference to normative?
> 
>>> So it should reference https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/REC-webrtc-20210126
>> 
>> RFC 8829 references https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/PR-webrtc-20201215/. I just want to verify that there is no text etc in 8829bis that is not aligned with 20210126.
> 
> Harald or Cullen can one of you comment on this? The vast majority of PRs merged into the 202110126 version were marked as editorial.
> 
> spt
> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Christer
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 29, 2022, at 6:39 AM, Christer Holmberg <mailto:christer.holmberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> A couple of comments:
>>> 
>>> First, in general, if we are going to update the reference version, we need to verify that we don’t break anything.
>>> 
>>> Second, most of the RTCWEB RFCs referencing the WebRTC spec seem to reference *without* a version (i.e., https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/). Many RFCs also reference to RFC 8825 for WebRTC, and RFC 8825 also reference WebRTC without a version.
>>> 
>>> So, is there a reason why we would use a version in JSEP, while not in other RFCs? Note that often the WebRTC reference is Normative.
>>> 
>>> I do understand that JSEP is very closely linked to WebRTC, why there might be a need to reference a given version. But, then again, we need to make sure that updating the version does not break anything.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Christer
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Gen-art <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:08:37 AM
>>> To: Sean Turner <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; mailto:[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; RTCWeb IETF <mailto:[e-mail]>; 
>>> mailto:[e-mail]<draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc882
>>> mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of 
>>> draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02
>>> 
>>> 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 <mailto:[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:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gen-art mailing list
>>> mailto:[e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>>> --
>>> last-call mailing list
>>> mailto:[e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>> 
>