Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-01.txt

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 04CFA12D0B8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SiHM3VjfxHzz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF1F112D0A5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1627; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1459213673; x=1460423273; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=YXd61d+W+zcnaSuYq0up3RDc5gwWRex9KTccwPtzp6g=; b=cYaIWl+e9I4VpuWs4Ge61OXB9zkqldbMGQR9Zay1aIz3aJFVHdnj2MrF KEYO3iikxs75FvqF0nC07njeIemmwtyq4ENCuXOLVj1GVvgL8i+oXXuXX yU0OBCjciCgEqrUHbrP5FYn6ovU8ZkY4TmWb6LicPqZjnrsqvf9UmugcM s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AEAgB31PlW/5xdJa1dgy6BVrp1AQ2BcIYNAoElOBQBAQEBAQEBZBwLhEIBAQMBOk8CAQg2EDIlAgSIMgjAawEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFogQCIJJhDqDLYIrBZdkAY4FgWaHdYUyhhGIegEeAQFCggMZgUmIaH4BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,409,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="85715053"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Mar 2016 01:07:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (xch-rtp-002.cisco.com [64.101.220.142]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2T17qK0011569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 01:07:53 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) by XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (64.101.220.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:07:52 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-004.cisco.com ([64.101.220.144]) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com ([64.101.220.144]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:07:51 -0400
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRiVdqsfD9L22j3EOs3+YtS9XvKg==
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 01:07:51 +0000
Message-ID: <35A3DA21-CF81-45B0-9617-28323A02101E@cisco.com>
References: <20160320223116.8946.76840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEAFFC7@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CA+9kkMCsT43ZCSdq8gdKXu1k4pJgbf0ab5tE=dDiFfrTT2gtkA@mail.gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEB0D16@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <56F79D05.8070004@alvestrand.no> <326E6502-28E5-4D09-BB99-4A5D80625EB0@stewe.org> <56F88E18.2060506@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <20160328104731.GO88304@verdi> <CALaySJ+hYMMsKE7Ws-NJbyqH55E-mQM-duTEcJGc0TWvTP88Ew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+hYMMsKE7Ws-NJbyqH55E-mQM-duTEcJGc0TWvTP88Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.165]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B8DAE2DBD0853340BF52BCB528D8B21C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/2rHRcmEyuqi_TWtX9l_Jmlo4yR8>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-01.txt
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 29 Mar 2016 01:07:56 -0000

(Reduce the to line to the relevant WG list ...)


> 
> My suggestion is to write a tiny draft (I'm willing to be the editor
> of that) that updates 2119, which makes one of the following changes:
> 
> NEW -- alternative 1
>   In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
>   the requirements in the specification.  These words are often
>   capitalized, as shown below, but they have special, requirements
>   meanings regardless of capitalization.
> 
> NEW -- alternative 2
>   In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
>   the requirements in the specification.  These words have special,
>   requirements meanings only when they appear in ALL CAPITALS,
>   as shown below.
> 

How about the authors of this document make it clear which of these two conventions they are using in this document and we can avoid the whole debate as it become more or less an editorial nit at that point. 

Personally, I can't imagine while the words from 2119 are in CAP if it did not mean that CAP has special meaning, so I have always read 2119 to line up with alt 1 but really, I don't care. I'd be perfectly happy for the authors to remove all mention of 2119 and use whatever words captured the consensus of the WG. IMHO, there are topics that are much more important that this WG needs to get done - perhaps some other WG could work on an update to 2119 but in the meantime the internet seems to have survived with specs using the possibly under defined meanings in 2119. 

(Cullen with my individual contributor hat on)