Re: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-24: (with COMMENT)

Magnus Westerlund <> Thu, 11 June 2015 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566211A8B84; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6-Y-zSPtb6rI; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60B2B1A8837; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79ec6d000006dc0-9a-5579497007c7
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AD.4C.28096.07949755; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:40:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:40:16 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:40:14 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW6BZ2Wowccn+haHFl9itZjxZyKz xdp/7ewOzB4tq3qZPZYs+ckUwBTFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlfHiw0vWgjNiFbuurWVsYJwl1MXI ySEhYCIxb/YzNghbTOLCvfVANheHkMBRRomGd2uYQRJCAssZJea8qOxiZOfgFdCWuKIAEmUR UJV4cHUKWCubgIXEzR+NYLaoQJTE1MfrWEBsXgFBiZMzn4DZIgKaEs8/T2ECsZkFHCVWTloH Vi8skCLx6esVJoi1Sxkl5n5fzA6S4BQIlHh7Zi4bRIOFxMz55xkhbHmJ5q2zoU7Tlmho6mCd wCg4C8m+WUhaZiFpWcDIvIpRtDi1uDg33chIL7UoM7m4OD9PLy+1ZBMjMGwPbvlttYPx4HPH Q4wCHIxKPLwLXleECrEmlhVX5h5ilOZgURLnnbE5L1RIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+qDQntfgQIxMH p1QDY1h73z/ek/O3XQ7klH23+4r5jykPuvfU5K/7F7Q3X7JM4eVxG44V73e9NLOepds0442J TQrXgzBG7ukCNhUuuziljnqbcrqvuDf7yazPst3sFewP6zM/PDyT23vEvuDw3lnbX278tjWd hSG6Nr8ysyN5cr/OhT7hTyrPXPLrGyMzc5aWC6kfUmIpzkg01GIuKk4EAEZGlcE8AgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-24: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:40:20 -0000

Barry Leiba skrev den 2015-06-10 18:07:
>> However, my personal view is that IETF need to be able to reference concept
>> and basic definitions from informational documents without making it
>> normative references. Otherwise we will have a lot of things in the downref
>> registry and not be able to find when we end up in actual real issues with
>> protocol mechanisms and their source and maturity. That is why I intended to
>> leave draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview as an informational reference.
> Well, I think normative references are all those that you *need* in
> order to understand the document.  If you don't read rtcweb-overview
> and understand the terminology in it... would you be able to properly
> understand this document?

So the overview is the entry point into the whole set of RTCWEB WG 
documents. It gives high level understanding of the relation of all the 
components. The RTP usage I think only one real include, which is the 
definition of WebRTC endpoint.

> That said, I'll leave it to your judgment here, and won't argue the
> point further.

I will change this to a normative reference, mostly because I have a 
faulty memory and overview is actually targeted to become an 
applicability statement, i.e. standards track. Thus, this whole circus 
around downrefs don't apply.

 From my point of view the overview is important, but it is only this 
definition you truly need to understand to implement correctly the RTP 
stack. However, you clearly need to understand where the piece fits.

> [And as a side point, I'm working with some other folks on an update
> to BCP 97.  The update would *not* require that these sorts of
> documents go into the downref registry, but would instead give
> judgment to the IESG on the right way to handle this while making sure
> that normative references were sufficiently mature.  Because I agree
> that the downref registry was never *meant* for documents that are
> only used for terminology.]

I think that is mostly good. But, we clearly have had a shift in 
interpretation of what a normative reference is from when I started 
being on the IESG 2006 (When the IESG statement was written) and now.

I hope this means that also the expectations are a bit more explicitly 
written up on what an normative reference is. Thus avoiding discussions 
due to shifts in interpretation.


Magnus Westerlund

Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: