IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Updated -gateways draft

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 06 July 2015 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95581A1AB6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 dNo1w39566kW for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF90C1A1A2D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4F87C3764 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:19:09 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SoByfmuOTefC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:19:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:18ae:b7c4:5e3a:9fb6] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:18ae:b7c4:5e3a:9fb6]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30FB97C3763 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:19:08 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <559AFEDB.4070205@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:19:07 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/9gZ8p5NDXPT4M7-YVRnT_vRgys4>
Subject: [rtcweb] Updated -gateways draft
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:19:11 -0000

Uwe and I have prepared a new -gateways draft (version -01).

I don't think there's much controversial in it, and there's only one
issue that I think needs WG time at this time:

Should it be Informational or Standards-track?

An informational document defines guidance for how gateways should
behave, but nobody needs to pay attention if they don't want to.

A standards-track document (which no other RTCWEB document should be
dependent on) defines requirements for how things that call themselves
"WebRTC gateways" should behave, but nobody needs to call their gateways
that, and anyway, there's no protocol police, so the difference isn't
all that much in practice.

More important: What do people want it to be?

Harald

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email