Re: [rtcweb] References to -overview (Re: Unresolved normative references in IETF RTCWEB WG documents)

Bernard Aboba <> Sun, 18 August 2013 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06AEA11E8175 for <>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 14:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8TIsrrNys6Eq for <>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 14:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296D411E8159 for <>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 14:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU405-EAS78 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 18 Aug 2013 14:58:56 -0700
X-TMN: [CsxwP5Af13VQujaS8qJ2Sr3Oy/zmBN+9]
X-Originating-Email: []
Message-ID: <BLU405-EAS78D22C3CB8963FB18951F293410@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <>
To: 'Harald Alvestrand' <>
References: <BLU169-W11426A149ADD0123A6BEF4C93460@phx.gbl> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 14:58:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_B50B_01CE9C23.75553570"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQABAgME/MqTPQe2A3p0JQVNnAX3+p02sCfA
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2013 21:58:56.0228 (UTC) FILETIME=[22A2DA40:01CE9C5E]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] References to -overview (Re: Unresolved normative references in IETF RTCWEB WG documents)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 21:59:02 -0000

Harald said: 


"In my opinion, the normal case should be that references to -overview are
informative, not normative. Documents should be published when they're

[BA]  Looking over the both RTP usage and security documents, it seems
reasonable to convert the normative references to informative in both cases

Looking at the RTP usage document, there is no normative language that
points to -overview and in fact -overview is only mentioned twice: 

Section 1

   The WebRTC overview [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview
eb-overview> ] outlines the complete
   WebRTC framework, of which this memo is a part.
[BA] While -overview does reference RTP usage, and the RTP usage document is
certainly an important part of WebRTC, I don't think this implies a
normative reference to -overview.  After all, almost everything in the RTP
usage document can (and probably has been) implemented outside of WebRTC. 


Section 3

   Other terms are used according to their definitions from the RTP
   Specification [RFC3550 <> ] and WebRTC
eb-overview> ] documents.


[BA] This sentence doesn't point to specific terms defined in Section 2.4 of
-overview that are needed for understanding the RTP usage document, but if
there are some, those could be added to the RTP usage document, rather than
requiring a normative reference.  

The security document only has a single reference to -overview: 

Section 1

   The Real-Time Communications on the Web (RTCWEB) working group is
   tasked with standardizing protocols for real-time communications
   between Web browsers, generally called "WebRTC"

b-overview> ].

[BA] Since the security documents has its own introductory material, and
doesn't reference terminology or other aspects of -overview other than the
above, an informative reference seems like it should be fine.