Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

> Also the above statement indicates a need for a new API to notify the
> application about the loss of ability and this is some thing outside the
> scope of this document.

At the moment, the new API is in scope, as it's discussed in section 7:

7.  API Recommendations

   The W3C specification [W3C-WEBRTC] may provide an API hook that
   generates an event when consent has expired for a given 5-tuple,
   meaning that transmission of data has ceased.  This could indicate
   what application data is affected, such as media or data channels.

If that section remains in the draft, I would be happy with adding one
sentence to the end of that paragraph:

   That API hook could also include other reasons for loss of ability
   to send data, e.g., tripping of the circuit breaker mechanism
   discussed in section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage].

Alternatively, Section 7 could be deleted - I could live with that,
although I'd prefer that section 7 remain, as I'd expect readers to
be interested in how an application learns that consent has expired.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:51 PM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); Black, David; joel jaeggli
> ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-
> freshness-13
> 
> See inline for one comment:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy   (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, 28 May 2015 12:02 pm
> To: "Black, David ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>, "joel
> jaeggli ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review
> of	draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13
> 
> >>Ok, but .. this is not about "how applications should handle" loss of
> >>consent;
> >>it's about "how implementations should report" loss of consent.  Part of
> >>this
> >>is already in Section 7, which indicates how the application learns that
> >>consent has expired.  It would suffice to add a sentence added to that
> >>section to indicate that there are other reasons for loss of ability to
> >>transmit
> >>data, and include an example of how at least one other is reported to
> >>applications.
> >
> >NEW:
> >The circuit breaker algorithm discussed in section 7.1 of
> >[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage] could be one of the reasons for ceasing
> >transmission of media and to notify the application about the loss of
> >ability to transmit data.
> 
> There may be multiple reasons for a webRTC endpoint to cease transmission
> (one being circuit breaker) and I feel we should not add all those here in
> consent draft.
> 
> Also the the above statement indicates a need for a new API to notify the
> application about the loss of ability and this is some thing outside the
> scope of this document.
> 
> IMO this text looks out of place and we should not add this to draft.
> 
> Regards,
> Ram