Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 25 April 2017 19:30 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 3B53C131474; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FkL56XR7_0Yt; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2102D129450; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v3PJUXrR021629 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:30:34 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <149303566483.25889.317046108892686691.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:30:33 -0500
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview@ietf.org, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ADD72BEE-BBE9-418C-9CED-B1FBB1FC6B9D@nostrum.com>
References: <149303566483.25889.317046108892686691.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/3-M0C1FvrDgb0ItVWZnvQXf8YpU>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 25 Apr 2017 19:30:36 -0000
> On Apr 24, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > > In regard to the shepherd write-up, I just want to note that using > normative language does not automatically make the document Standards > Track; there are many informational docs that use normative language. As > such, I don't want raise a big discussion on status now, but this > document sounds more informational to me (giving pointers to other > document). However, I don't object to publication on Standards Track. I read the shepherd write up to say that they believe these specific normative requirements suggest this should be standards track, not the use of normative language in general. Basically this draft defines the set of protocols/technologies that are part of the WebRTC standard. Thanks! Ben.
- [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dr… Ben Campbell
- Re: [rtcweb] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dr… Sean Turner