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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

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