Re: [rtcweb] Positioning draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-address as a standards-track document

Thanks for the concrete feedback. I agree with the proposed direction.

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

> I've read through draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-address again, with an eye to
> seeing how it would read as a standards-track document.
>
> As such, it seems to me to provide rather tentative language in a few
> places, which could be strengthened by use of the CAPITALIZED WORDS.
> I think this is a Good Thing; if this is standards-track, with
> imperative, normative language, an implementation can claim support for
> RFC XXXX and expect the statement to be understood.
> (Remember - there is no protocol police. Nothing forces people to
> support RFC XXXX.)
>
> Changes needed:
>
> - Add the RFC 2119 incantation, including Stefan's addition ("lowercase
> words mean what they usually do")
>
> - Replace all occurences of "We recommend that..." with "an
> implementation MUST".
>
> - In section 3, end of first paragraph: "   Specifically, WebRTC
> should:" -> "Implementations of this specification will:"
>
> - In section 4: "We recommend Mode 1 ... " -> "Mode 1 and mode 2 MUST be
> supported. Mode 1 SHOULD be the default when the user has not granted
> access to camera / microphone. Mode 2 SHOULD be the default when the
> user has granted access to camera / microphone. The implementation MAY
> provide means of letting the user or administrator select between modes.
> These means MUST NOT be placed under the control of WebRTC applications."
>
> I think this would make the spec a more useful tool for specifying what
> an application does.
>
>
>
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>