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

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

I won't lose any sleep over the classification of the draft but the definition of a WebRTC Gateway is that it is a WebRTC Compatible Device (as stated in draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview) which by definition is not constrained by the RTCWEB spec's.

I can wait and see what normative text makes it in to the document so far what I see are obvious statements that if not followed the WebRTC part of the gateway just would not work.


Andy



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 30 April 2015 16:17
> To: ext DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Hutton, Andrew; Harald Alvestrand; Gaelle
> Martin-Cocher; Sean Turner; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-
> gateways
> 
> I agree.
> This draft contains informative parts and requirements to gateway
> implementations - and it needs to be able to express these in normative
> language.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Uwe
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:18 PM
> To: Hutton, Andrew; Harald Alvestrand; Gaelle Martin-Cocher;
> Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich); Sean Turner; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-
> gateways
> 
> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > Hutton, Andrew
> > Sent: 30 April 2015 09:11
> > To: Harald Alvestrand; Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Rauschenbach,
> > Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich); Sean Turner; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 29 April 2015 19:51
> > > To: Hutton, Andrew; Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Rauschenbach, Uwe
> > (Nokia -
> > > DE/Munich); Sean Turner; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Harald
> > > >> Alvestrand
> > > >> Sent: 22 April 2015 17:20
> > > >> To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich);
> > > Sean
> > > >> Turner; [e-mail]
> > > >> Cc: [e-mail]
> > > >> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > > >> Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)
> > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:52 PM
> > > >>> To: ext Harald Alvestrand; Sean Turner; [e-mail]
> > > >>> Cc: [e-mail]
> > > >>> 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 [[e-mail]]" im Auftrag von
> > > "ext
> > > >> Harald Alvestrand [[e-mail]]
> > > >>> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. April 2015 07:46
> > > >>> An: Sean Turner; [e-mail]
> > > >>> Cc: [e-mail]
> > > >>> 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
> > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > > >>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> rtcweb mailing list
> > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> rtcweb mailing list
> > > >> [e-mail]
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >