Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Protocol Action: 'Transports for WebRTC' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17.txt)
From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:59:15 -0400
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>

Congrats! Another draft has progressed down the road:
https://giphy.com/gifs/car-reactiongifs-mrw-T4YX44tlqOKaI/fullscreen

spt

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 09:43, The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Transports for WebRTC'
>  (draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17.txt) as Proposed Standard
> 
> This document is the product of the Real-Time Communication in
> WEB-browsers Working Group.
> 
> The IESG contact persons are Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell and Alissa
> Cooper.
> 
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technical Summary
> 
>  This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC,
>  including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes
>  such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes.
> 
> Working Group Summary
> 
>  Nothing particularly controversial in this spec. It is largely just a 
>  pointer to other specifications saying if you do WebRTC, then you need 
>  to what RFC X,Y, and Z says. 
> 
>  Based on the WGLC comments, the chairs suggest adding an RFC Ed note 
>  to include an informative reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-return 
>  however there is not WG consensus to make this a MUST or SHOULD 
>  implement. (Cleary nothing forbids implementing it so it is already an 
>  MAY implement)
> 
> Document Quality
> 
>  Much of this is implemented in chrome and firefox which share a 
>  significant amount of code with respect to this so some parts of it 
>  has 2 implementations, some parts 1, and some none. 
> 
> Personnel
> 
>  Cullen Jennings is the document shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the 
>  responsible AD.