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

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:44 PM Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 6, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 7:59 PM Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> 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.