Re: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 D420F12F1A2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:50:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 qFrpPiYjHsV2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) (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 39D4F1310F7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id x4so11860693ion.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:50:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wjijptUNQRHbRVaymO9/O1vDJCNMENw/vW3tx5RG9MM=; b=GbmD1YeFKTb1vktF+Zv6JL4jL4VCh6fzcqNV9zo4rOB3lF/CcVy84rT+F69ISLnsXp SFY1tIrz+Z31uGm4Sf8m2Vz0m8tXVy0BXIQ67aE0pVv0BzH/lKkt0foRQkf7lT9diiYO gGbhERdrSLw3f3TMYM0jRAVmEn+1nkGsXMlwHp9i0J3Gd72weiasoi6JrhwEvVDR1Ots owlg0++76aJIVcjHQ/Or83d13N5oXuctE6NnjjuV5dKYkD2W6y/rFwDnTno5LkjwyQ6a mwKS5gt4UBpS4VZS43WEMcbduSWoydptydm19HdNDoLiGc88HkzepTnEUY012sqgPzsI Mq3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wjijptUNQRHbRVaymO9/O1vDJCNMENw/vW3tx5RG9MM=; b=V/p6NQRQheINRn18xpvHVdiGGIamiRIUnEc6njTZdDJr+Y+yZlJJqYVKqkk45E7wbj WHBppHWSeABrYp34xefSYus9fZMZlMRzhB9OQh0+jnbbdxvjQVRvBl968eqI00J4vWva PJiUBZnO0t9c0SC9yoQK6BIZZJgVCno00knKaIsLkxwTo9pBFj2PBhS77/JNu6OxeCRl FA9mUWSwth7KaJ+jTYyKeeHjTt+apY4c63ufKkOvbK9f/tYSIP/EJyvaum9LSveqUVwY 28+aNRt21MGDCGZtm6yJVpnfQCEeUcG6Ds5cfYsdM7BlcAstEG+ZpqweHE7lTI79zmKn wV1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV3B2pwVTZI81fPeIEe3MLO/q7nkguYNZcGwW3x9QWR53z20uZv i3WxEvz7/i3XflgZGTsG3R1txTWCuQR5HMJhRheaoQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwvLUTzjw6tiwUCjlHVHgjjG8vTy9bMF54bm00CSvsbUf4sb4YZmOI94hu5h7O0xhrbBAtWqvyNiqMBdiNOjFk=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ef02:: with SMTP id k2mr4385745ioh.95.1551916221269; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:50:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155175838513.5229.12205097799963525432.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOJ7v-3wQ3Dz58Kohx+dJOEMOiPPmKHfwZrQwGB5j5R7kiG9tA@mail.gmail.com> <65AC0812-0A88-42AD-8645-AC3318E60F8B@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <65AC0812-0A88-42AD-8645-AC3318E60F8B@nostrum.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:50:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3F-66fU630kJtkEyQfgq6-XLtSsGX+26hQppaLqi+VDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017610b058375a7c3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/3Hj2U3R2JR_R2EyuAo6vyyRY-UA>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 23:50:28 -0000

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 6, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 7:59 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: Yes
>>
>> 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I agree with Mirja that this reads more like a BCP. Was BCP status
>> considered by the WG?
>>
>
> I don't think it was explicitly discussed. We have been treating this
> document similarly to the other recommendation documents for WebRTC, e.g.
> the recommended audio codecs in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7874;
> these docs are all Standards Track.
>
>
> It’s not a show stopper from my perspective, especially if we are talking
> about recommendations to W3C.
>
>
>> (nit) §3: Please expand "RTMFP" on first mention.
>>
>> (nit) §5.2: "Mode 1 MUST only be used when user consent has been provided"
>> Please consider "... MUST NOT be used unless user consent has been
>> provided."
>>
>> §11.2: It seems like the references for STUN and TURN should be normative.
>>
>
> It wasn't clear to me that STUN and TURN meet the bar of "required to
> implement this RFC". Open to other points of view here though.
>
>
> §7 contains says applications SHOULD deploy a TURN server; that’s enough
> to make TURN normative. It’s less clear for STUN, but I think it passes the
> “necessary to fully implement or _understand_” bar.
>

Fair enough.