[rtcweb] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-03
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Like John Scudder, with such an easy diff vs. RFC 8829, I have only reviewed
the diffs.

Special thanks to Sean Turner for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status, the unusual
format is sensible for such a minimum -bis.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### I-D name

Like Erik Kline @ekline, I really wonder (and regret) why the I-D name was not
updated to become draft-ietf-*, the shepherd explanation does not really
satisfy me as at least two ADs are commenting on this I-D name and if is
generating more work for the IESG review (checking mailing list & status). Not
a big deal but a real annoyance.

### Section 4.1.1

The change from "max-bundle" to "must-bundle" is unclear to me (but I am not an
expert in this protocol) and, with an apparently significant change, should
there be normative language to ensure transition from 8829 to the -bis ?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments