Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways

Gaelle Martin-Cocher <> Wed, 22 April 2015 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7551A6F01 for <>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NYJhZnQ9C-8x for <>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE381A049A for <>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 22 Apr 2015 11:36:38 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::fcd6:cc6c:9e0b:25bc]) by ([fe80::9c22:d9c:c906:c488%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:36:37 -0400
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <>
To: "Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)" <>, ext Harald Alvestrand <>, Sean Turner <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways
Thread-Index: AQHQeHFa5bXT8KfOaES0di1Z0MxN+Z1SiFYAgAJtjACABB1wYA==
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:36:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:36:47 -0000

Dear all,

I do have some concerns with this proposal.
I was under impression that the gateway would be an informational draft and there was no desire to specify conformance requirements.

The current text describes high level functions that can be expected from a gateway but does not define clearly what would be required to conform to. 
If the intend of the draft is to specify conformance requirements (first sentence of the abstract) there could be more requirements to relax and the current requirements would need to be define more clearly. 
Is it the intend?

If it is, here are some examples:
While the WebRTC Gateway is described in the abstract (but not only, see section 1) as "a class of
   WebRTC-compatible endpoints called "WebRTC gateways" ", section 2 states that WebRTC gateway are "expected to conform to the requirements for WebRTC non-browsers in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], with the exceptions defined in this section"

Wouldn't it be clearer to just define the WebRTC gateway from the WebRTC non-browser rather than from an unspecified WebRTC-compatible endpoint? 
It might provide a better understanding of what the gateway should be conforming to.

Requirements in 2, either:
- are clear: e.g. the gateway MUST support DTLS-SRTP 
- describe what the gateway MAY NOT support....see second to last paragraph 
- or leave some ambiguity: The gateway does not have to do X (e.g. full ICE); so it may do Y (e.g. ICE-Lite). 
Playing devil's advocate: can there be a gateway doing yet something else? 
What would it conform to?  

Shouldn't the requirement be reworded to state what the gateway MAY or SHALL do/support.... and conform to?

Section 1.1 and 1.2 seems unclear if meant to belong to a conformance requirements draft.

It is unclear to me if the purpose of the draft is to define conformance requirements for WebRTC gateway, or is to focus on relaxing some requirements for gateways as per section 2, or is an informational description of what can be expected from a WebRTC 'compatible' gateway.


-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [] On Behalf Of Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:52 PM
To: ext Harald Alvestrand; Sean Turner;
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways

+1 for adoption.

The same question that Harald raised came to my mind - there was another adoption call end of last year with a lot of support (

Kind regards,

Von: rtcweb []&quot; im Auftrag von &quot;ext Harald Alvestrand []
Gesendet: Samstag, 18. April 2015 07:46
An: Sean Turner;
Betreff: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways

On 04/16/2015 08:15 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
> All,
> There's been some interest expressed in having adopted as an RTCWeb WG item.  Please respond to say whether you support adoption of this work as a working group work item and whether you will participate in the discussion.   If you are opposed to this draft becoming a WG document, please say so (and say why).  Please have your response in by 20150423 23:59 UTC.
> Thanks in advance!
> spt
Naturally, I support adoption.

Question: Is this a repeat of the exercise on which Cullen reported consensus for adoption in December 2014, or is this a side effect of starting fomal tracking of adoption status?

Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

rtcweb mailing list

rtcweb mailing list