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

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Tue, 03 May 2022 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95A1C159A21 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2022 16:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZm2VInYg-KH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2022 16:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E797C157B5B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 May 2022 16:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id hh4so14793185qtb.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 May 2022 16:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TkoPaNfqhmPQT4PH53uFUFaYYw/PCX9p/JIbC7Aa0jY=; b=B0bJ93RX7mAoU9R5++AqtdfpO8odkdfQ4+oTYsYEA1LeeBRPtw6QgIBK7nNPFaZJYq ywrNA0F2T0ozLEWjgFiNXaW25NDTp1fZYh4cP8PT2gM7f+LyHz6pepi8W01yjztf3RKD leOqK31Xv04MZjUoULRjyi4zq4PXDGklPxfLk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TkoPaNfqhmPQT4PH53uFUFaYYw/PCX9p/JIbC7Aa0jY=; b=68+QWEYY1EPlDBCtJOV571lo1QAuDIGtd116jq8Zu/RgHFNPq0FooaJB+iivBgPIrG hjXv1YaOCt6Fn8r97BMNSM63go+Hr0Xw5ehX/rWFcigYuJSKkrHiMvahMOjYGV91z2fQ ISQzPJ1Cm1IjMzYQ8gFuR/W5DYG9RB3UxzJmdZQzXFzDbVQ0Rqel4fPwAZOCAt4QHz1R SBzGHqm0agSHXHYpME4Pcw13Pqesho1EvtD+qv+wPka6kaXRoR8bKVvaViWyEoKOHU5h QbzQTSQt5LUmqlN7nfRNIHEsuFH6oAPmZXtU2iJsOAlPxz9vatu0ui97Xe0wIa/DV77H bJTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UcoNm538ePaD3dZ06TnlD68sXlYbj7vfeoVCWqunSGRSONHuo HBDp0hfkSz7+eFRV6dEPpPsfRA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBhR/QSKWrPG8YhgkvzIZIye7uLIay4K5llMQ6lPNeCwMJhd5jJ4uwxm1yr2QfdzH785vmpA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1a06:b0:2f3:86cb:e929 with SMTP id f6-20020a05622a1a0600b002f386cbe929mr17108731qtb.660.1651622001132; Tue, 03 May 2022 16:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-72-83-85-4.washdc.east.verizon.net. [72.83.85.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s77-20020a37a950000000b0069ff8ebec6asm2845934qke.114.2022.05.03.16.53.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 May 2022 16:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <39CFF823-5113-4B26-ADD6-05830C5D37DF@sn3rd.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 19:53:18 -0400
Cc: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6F029B75-869D-43C9-94CF-2976D735D5F2@sn3rd.com>
References: <164840334560.25727.8727238035250838155@ietfa.amsl.com> <320CCABF-5283-4B07-B637-FC03F582CA2D@sn3rd.com> <72fa004c-cdd8-807d-1ba6-4ba2b3b15969@joelhalpern.com> <HE1PR07MB444195619B7E78EF95184FC4931E9@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <3BD1DD31-5248-4B91-B06E-F6376E694492@cisco.com> <HE1PR07MB4441FFA95E0F0733ED2B6B1F93F09@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <39CFF823-5113-4B26-ADD6-05830C5D37DF@sn3rd.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/1DiZpXOKY41k_h9ngVNr84wD034>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 23:53:26 -0000

bump

> On Apr 26, 2022, at 21:39, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> 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 <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern 
>>> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:08:37 AM
>>> To: Sean Turner <mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>
>>> Cc: mailto:last-call@ietf.org <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>; mailto:gen-art@ietf.org 
>>> <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>; RTCWeb IETF <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>; 
>>> mailto:draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org<draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc882
>>> mailto:9bis.all@ietf.org>
>>> 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:noreply@ietf.org> 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:Gen-art@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>>> --
>>> last-call mailing list
>>> mailto:last-call@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>> 
>