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

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 30 April 2015 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 9505A1B29DE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 VXQ9w4odwBr3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5EA81A8A1B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id A843B836A9DD8; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:17:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t3UDHq5q001066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:17:56 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.203]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:17:55 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>, "Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)" <uwe.rauschenbach@nokia.com>, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways
Thread-Index: AQHQeHFZk/kiDbUe00yMhhi49ry8lp1SiFYAgAJtjACABB1wYIAACoyAgAsSGNCAABhwAIAA33KAgABuvyA=
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:17:53 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B6970CD26@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <D8920B96-7C22-4F9F-B323-FC59120C7508@ieca.com>, <5531EFD2.5010107@alvestrand.no> <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF81962D96C@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AAEC0E1EC8@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <5537CA1F.1060209@alvestrand.no> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E75341E@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <55412808.7040409@alvestrand.no> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E754711@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E754711@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/AwRJm4SKJ9eqR4-ty5zjfGeh0jY>
Cc: "draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways@tools.ietf.org" <draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:18:02 -0000

I remain to be convinced that this should be entirely informational.

I suspect a mixture of conditional conformable requirements and informational material may be what we end up with.

For example, if the gateway terminates the datachannel, then the gateway MUST support the requirements of the datachannel document. If the gateway performs trascoding, or other interference with the RTP stream, then the gateway MUST support the requirements of rtp-usage document.

>From an external referencing perspective, it does not matter whether it is informational or standards track, but the important point to me is that the document can and will contain normative requirements where appropriate.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Hutton, Andrew
> Sent: 30 April 2015 09:11
> To: Harald Alvestrand; Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Rauschenbach, 
> Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich); Sean Turner; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: 
> draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways
> 
> I do support adoption of the draft as an informational draft.
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> > Sent: 29 April 2015 19:51
> > To: Hutton, Andrew; Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Rauschenbach, Uwe 
> (Nokia - 
> > DE/Munich); Sean Turner; rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Cc: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: 
> draft-alvestrand-rtcweb- 
> > gateways
> > 
> > Den 29. april 2015 17:27, skrev Hutton, Andrew:
> > > So to be clear my understanding is that the draft status will be
> > changed to "Informational" and the abstract will be changed 
> to remove 
> > the statement about specifying "conformance requirements".  Is that 
> > correct?
> > >
> > > The draft is therefore not intended to specify conformance
> > requirements but will provide implementation guidance.
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, that's my plan.
> > 
> > 
> > > Regards
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Harald 
> > >> Alvestrand
> > >> Sent: 22 April 2015 17:20
> > >> To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich);
> > Sean
> > >> Turner; rtcweb@ietf.org
> > >> Cc: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways@tools.ietf.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: 
> > >> draft-alvestrand-rtcweb- gateways
> > >>
> > >> Den 22. april 2015 17:36, skrev Gaelle Martin-Cocher:
> > >>> Dear all,
> > >>>
> > >>> I do have some concerns with this proposal.
> > >>> From https://www.ietf.org/mail-
> > >> archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13885.html
> > >>> 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?
> > >>
> > >> I have not updated the intro - I think feedback was reasonably 
> > >> clear that an informational document was wanted, we want to give 
> > >> advice,
> > but
> > >> not to dictate what implementations do.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Sincerely,
> > >>> Gaëlle
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > >> Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:52 PM
> > >>> To: ext Harald Alvestrand; Sean Turner; rtcweb@ietf.org
> > >>> Cc: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways@tools.ietf.org
> > >>> 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
> > >> (https://www.ietf.org/mail-
> > archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg14050.html).
> > >>>
> > >>> Kind regards,
> > >>> Uwe
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________________
> > >>> Von: rtcweb [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org]&quot; im Auftrag von
> > &quot;ext
> > >> Harald Alvestrand [harald@alvestrand.no]
> > >>> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. April 2015 07:46
> > >>> An: Sean Turner; rtcweb@ietf.org
> > >>> Cc: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways@tools.ietf.org
> > >>> 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
> > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways/
> > >> 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@ietf.org
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> rtcweb mailing list
> > >>> rtcweb@ietf.org
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> rtcweb mailing list
> > >> rtcweb@ietf.org
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>