Re: [rtcweb] References to -overview (Re: Unresolved normative references in IETF RTCWEB WG documents)

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Thu, 22 August 2013 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAA211E80FA for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.464
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QiQaBGGTuV-j for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD86A21F9962 for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1662; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377195724; x=1378405324; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=6FK5uqABpWvug/uAv3jU+MIwTpW8oCoIKceBde6kdoM=; b=AztA2K85x+i2askkFgMsyNQGCjS7r53wqhJP0+9X/6vdu8TI7ZGI10M/ PGWd4ld1C1wxukYh+aonUFEhdh3pC6TrDAjsExM+cRU7NYfKjW/A08H0Y AIWzMRFEjp/TnOQx+TjrDtcuIYtXvY1GW60sO5exlMBPHCUHJ4Vr7IL0O 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFALZVFlKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABagweBBsAIgR0WdIIkAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgYChkLMiUCBA4FCIgCBrZ/kDMCMQeDG3sDiHagSoFkgTuCKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,935,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="250586751"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2013 18:22:04 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7MIM4wm022730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:22:04 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:22:04 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] References to -overview (Re: Unresolved normative references in IETF RTCWEB WG documents)
Thread-Index: AQHOn2SAYp74VPeOR02ir3axQuWzqQ==
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:22:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <BLU169-W11426A149ADD0123A6BEF4C93460@phx.gbl> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] References to -overview (Re: Unresolved normative references in IETF RTCWEB WG documents)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:22:12 -0000

On Aug 18, 2013, at 3:37 AM, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:

> On 08/15/2013 11:03 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> I've taken a look at the unresolved normative references in all of the current RTCWEB WG work items.  Here are some comments. 
>> Overall comment
>> Several of the documents (draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage, draft-ietf-rtcweb-security) have a normative reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview, while others do not (draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio, draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel, draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol, draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch).  While it probably makes sense for some documents to reference an overview of WebRTC, the overview document also functions as an overview of work relating to WebRTC, so that it has 9 unresolved normative dependencies.  The effect of a normative reference to the overview document is therefore to delay publication until all of the overview normative dependencies are resolved.  I am therefore wondering whether the normative references to the overview document are really necessary, or whether the dependencies shouldn't just go one way (e.g. from the overview to the other docs). 
> In my opinion, the normal case should be that references to -overview are informative, not normative. Documents should be published when they're ready.
> Most likely, the proper form is something like "This document specifies a protocol intended for use within the WebRTC effort, but is not restricted to that context. An overview of the WebRTC effort is given in [OVERVIEW]".
> Or something like that.