Re: [rtcweb] Updated -gateways draft

Den 14. juli 2015 05:18, skrev ranjit@ranjitvoip.com:
> Hi
> It would be good if it is a standards track as 3GPP depends on it and
> all implementations would confirm to it . having it as Informational is
> really not of much use.

Could you share some more detail here?

- What 3GPP spec is depending on it?
- What does the 3GPP spec depend on being in the draft?
- What's the rules for referencing an IETF spec from a 3GPP spec, and
why does the category matter?

Harald

> 
> - Ranjit
> 
> On 2015-07-06 5:35 pm, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Harald Alvestrand
>> <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Uwe and I have prepared a new -gateways draft (version -01).
>>>
>>> I don't think there's much controversial in it, and there's only
>>> one
>>> issue that I think needs WG time at this time:
>>>
>>> Should it be Informational or Standards-track?
>>>
>>> An informational document defines guidance for how gateways should
>>> behave, but nobody needs to pay attention if they don't want to.
>>>
>>> A standards-track document (which no other RTCWEB document should
>>> be
>>> dependent on) defines requirements for how things that call
>>> themselves
>>> "WebRTC gateways" should behave, but nobody needs to call their
>>> gateways
>>> that, and anyway, there's no protocol police, so the difference
>>> isn't
>>> all that much in practice.
>>>
>>> More important: What do people want it to be?
>>
>> I think we adopted it in part because 3GPP had a dependency on it.
>> Does it need to be standards track for them to reference it?
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>> Harald
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb [1]
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 