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

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

I do support adoption of the draft as an informational draft.

Andy



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 29 April 2015 19:51
> To: Hutton, Andrew; 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 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