Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

Den 29. april 2015 17:27, skrev Hutton, Andrew:
> So to be clear my understanding is that the draft status will be changed to "Informational" and the abstract will be changed to remove the statement about specifying "conformance requirements".  Is that correct?
> 
> The draft is therefore not intended to specify conformance requirements but will provide implementation guidance.
> 

Yes, that's my plan.


> Regards
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Harald
>> Alvestrand
>> Sent: 22 April 2015 17:20
>> To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich); Sean
>> Turner; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-
>> gateways
>>
>> Den 22. april 2015 17:36, skrev Gaelle Martin-Cocher:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I do have some concerns with this proposal.
>>> From https://www.ietf.org/mail-
>> archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13885.html
>>> I was under impression that the gateway would be an informational
>> draft and there was no desire to specify conformance requirements.
>>>
>>> The current text describes high level functions that can be expected
>> from a gateway but does not define clearly what would be required to
>> conform to.
>>> If the intend of the draft is to specify conformance requirements
>> (first sentence of the abstract) there could be more requirements to
>> relax and the current requirements would need to be define more
>> clearly.
>>> Is it the intend?
>>
>> I have not updated the intro - I think feedback was reasonably clear
>> that an informational document was wanted, we want to give advice, but
>> not to dictate what implementations do.
>>
>>>
>>> If it is, here are some examples:
>>> While the WebRTC Gateway is described in the abstract (but not only,
>> see section 1) as "a class of
>>>    WebRTC-compatible endpoints called "WebRTC gateways" ", section 2
>> states that WebRTC gateway are "expected to conform to the requirements
>> for WebRTC non-browsers in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], with the
>> exceptions defined in this section"
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be clearer to just define the WebRTC gateway from the
>> WebRTC non-browser rather than from an unspecified WebRTC-compatible
>> endpoint?
>>> It might provide a better understanding of what the gateway should be
>> conforming to.
>>>
>>> Requirements in 2, either:
>>> - are clear: e.g. the gateway MUST support DTLS-SRTP
>>> - describe what the gateway MAY NOT support....see second to last
>> paragraph
>>> - or leave some ambiguity: The gateway does not have to do X (e.g.
>> full ICE); so it may do Y (e.g. ICE-Lite).
>>> Playing devil's advocate: can there be a gateway doing yet something
>> else?
>>> What would it conform to?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the requirement be reworded to state what the gateway MAY
>> or SHALL do/support.... and conform to?
>>>
>>> Section 1.1 and 1.2 seems unclear if meant to belong to a conformance
>> requirements draft.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is unclear to me if the purpose of the draft is to define
>> conformance requirements for WebRTC gateway, or is to focus on relaxing
>> some requirements for gateways as per section 2, or is an informational
>> description of what can be expected from a WebRTC 'compatible' gateway.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Gaëlle
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:52 PM
>>> To: ext Harald Alvestrand; Sean Turner; [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-
>> gateways
>>>
>>> +1 for adoption.
>>>
>>> The same question that Harald raised came to my mind - there was
>> another adoption call end of last year with a lot of support
>> (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg14050.html).
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> Von: rtcweb [[e-mail]]" im Auftrag von "ext
>> Harald Alvestrand [[e-mail]]
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. April 2015 07:46
>>> An: Sean Turner; [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Betreff: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-
>> gateways
>>>
>>> On 04/16/2015 08:15 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> There's been some interest expressed in having
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways/
>> adopted as an RTCWeb WG item.  Please respond to say whether you
>> support adoption of this work as a working group work item and whether
>> you will participate in the discussion.   If you are opposed to this
>> draft becoming a WG document, please say so (and say why).  Please have
>> your response in by 20150423 23:59 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>>
>>>> spt
>>> Naturally, I support adoption.
>>>
>>> Question: Is this a repeat of the exercise on which Cullen reported
>> consensus for adoption in December 2014, or is this a side effect of
>> starting fomal tracking of adoption status?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb