Re: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 07 March 2019 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DAE13110B; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:17:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oUH15q5rxP8V; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC6B013108C; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:17:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x272HmjE046656 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Mar 2019 20:17:50 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1551925071; bh=hedKl7sGDWp8UG7ga166RV2pHKM0d8SUhfqHuKjrjWw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=GU6l+hSarmettxiaAZZFZ8Wq3aMrm9GhFVSBb43LyzgfZM576A2M9vRD8tXCkblhi KfezUvWWktvMQyWBVr/c27L3z/WeUuKInEjMeJBcDAzV46OUn6cKBp1P2DeLPPI2k/ MS9QprOZzIs/Lsr4fJI1u1U28p5AbYQLtqDfVXXw=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Justin Uberti <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling@ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org
References: <155175838513.5229.12205097799963525432.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOJ7v-3wQ3Dz58Kohx+dJOEMOiPPmKHfwZrQwGB5j5R7kiG9tA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <1156ebe7-8c10-be7e-d668-694cd66874f2@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 20:17:43 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3wQ3Dz58Kohx+dJOEMOiPPmKHfwZrQwGB5j5R7kiG9tA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7951EF22D99F95DB842B61CA"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/MIWO2xI85xMbU6mVsde6i91aJNM>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 02:17:55 -0000

On 3/6/19 5:37 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>
>     I agree with Mirja that this reads more like a BCP. Was BCP status
>     considered by the WG?
>
>
> I don't think it was explicitly discussed. We have been treating this 
> document similarly to the other recommendation documents for WebRTC, 
> e.g. the recommended audio codecs in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7874; these docs are all Standards Track.


It was actually touched on briefly in this thread:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/UYXeIvdRih3Mp7ox_VnkGdFIBxs

In which:

  * Keith Drage asks for clarification of the intended status
  * Participant Ted Hardie expresses mostly ambivalence with a very
    slight lean towards BCP
  * Harald Alvestrand expresses a somewhat stronger preference, but for ST
  * Alissa Cooper weighs in with an opinion that "it could be either one"
  * And then the working group goes on to have a 53-message-long thread
    about normative language that eventually causes Barry to write RFC 8174.

So it was discussed and no one felt strongly about its status, although 
the sentiment that *was* expressed did, on the average, lean very 
slightly towards standards track.

I agree with Justin's observation that RTCWEB has been putting these 
kinds of guidance documents out as standards track, in large part 
because doing things other than what is documented in them can result in 
decreased interoperability of implementations, which seems more like a 
standard than a "best practice."

/a