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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:47 PM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); Bernard Aboba;
> Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-
> freshness-13
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Why do we need to talk about W3C specifications at all? Couldn't we simply
> remove section 8?

It can be removed, discussion about W3C was there from day one of the draft.

> 
> The out-of-the-scope text I suggested earlier could be put e.g. in the
> Introduction, or in an Applicability section.

Works for me.

-Tiru
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com]
> Sent: 1. kesäkuuta 2015 12:13
> To: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); Christer Holmberg; Bernard Aboba; Harald
> Alvestrand
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-
> freshness-13
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ram Mohan
> R
> > (rmohanr)
> > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 11:31 AM
> > To: Christer Holmberg; Bernard Aboba; Harald Alvestrand
> > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-
> > freshness-13
> >
> > WFM. I am fine with keeping APIs out of scope for consent document. It
> > will be better to have all APIs in one document and have reference to
> > that where ever applicable.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> 8.  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.
>    The mechanism of how applications are made aware of consent
>    expiration is outside the scope of the document.
> 
> -Tiru
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ram
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> > Date: Sunday, 31 May 2015 7:08 pm
> > To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, Harald Alvestrand
> > <harald@alvestrand.no>
> > Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >>> I'd prefer to limit the number of documents that try to design APIs.
> > >>>
> > >>> Can we do something more generic, like "Applications that use the
> > >>> RTWEB transport will need to be notified when transmission ceases
> > >>> due to expiry of consent. The design of APIs to carry these
> > >>> notifications  is out of scope for this document."?
> > >>
> > >> [BA] Agree with Harald. Loss of STUN consent on a 5-tuple is quite
> > >>different from tripping  a circuit breaker. Let's not design the
> > >>APIs in this document.
> > >
> > >I agree on the not-designing-the-API part.
> > >
> > >Regarding Harald's suggested text, it's fine - but I don't think it
> > >belongs in this document. Shouldn't it be in the RTCWEB overview
> > >and/or security document instead?
> > >
> > >The consent freshness draft could then state that the
> > >mechanism/requirements how applications are made aware of consent
> > >expiration is outside the scope of the document.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Christer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >rtcweb mailing list
> > >rtcweb@ietf.org
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >rtcweb mailing list
> > >rtcweb@ietf.org
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb