[rtcweb] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 19:22 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370F41293F4; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview@ietf.org, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, sean@sn3rd.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149323455621.2873.875476556259905398.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:22:36 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/T6wmuj1lMPl20_JQ2Jn6m6w1WpE>
Subject: [rtcweb] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:22:36 -0000
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I've been waiting for this one, for a while. Thanks for finishing it. I'm a Yes, with comments. I agree with EKR that there's a lot of general philosophy in this draft. I wouldn't ask that you pull all of it, but perhaps it could be trimmed down a bit. This is a nit, but in this text, Other efforts, for instance the W3C WEBRTC, Web Applications and Device API working groups, focus on making standardized APIs and interfaces available, within or alongside the HTML5 effort, it would be nice to have the names here match what's on the W3C website. So, "Web Real-Time Communication", "Web Application Security", and "Device and Sensors", unless I'm guessing at the mapping wrong. It's also easy to read that text with "Web Applications and Device API" as a single working group, so using a comma after "Web Application Security" would be helpful. The term of art "floor control" is likely to be new to many readers in the future. Since it appears in a list of non-niche examples, maybe you don't need it at all? I'm not sure whether "let a thousand flowers bloom" is a reference to the Hundred Flowers campaign in 1956, but (1) that ended very badly for the bloomers, and (2) I could easily imagine the phrase tripping DPI filtering for a specific part of the Internet community. Maybe there's a better phrase? I'm not sure how tutorial you want section 4 to be, but I'd at least mention appropriate retransmission and in-order delivery, in addition to congestion control, since you get that with SCTP on the data channel. 4. Data transport Data transport refers to the sending and receiving of data over the network interfaces, the choice of network-layer addresses at each end of the communication, and the interaction with any intermediate entities that handle the data, but do not modify it (such as TURN relays). It includes necessary functions for congestion control: When not to send data. Or maybe you can just chop that sentence, because the next paragraph points to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-06, anyway? I found the reference to MMUSIC WG in 3. When a new codec is specified, and the SDP for the new codec is specified in the MMUSIC WG, no other standardization should be required for it to be possible to use that in the web browsers. to be odd. MMUSIC may be around forever, but this work might be refactored at some point in the future. Is the point that 3. When SDP for a new codec is specified, no other standardization should be required for it to be used in the web browsers. Or is there another way to say this? I'm also wondering if the statement is true for any WebRTC endpoint, not just browsers. In this text, WebRTC endpoints MUST implement the functions described in that document that relate to the network layer (for example Bundle [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation], RTCP-mux [RFC5761] and Trickle ICE [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle]), but do not need to support the API functionality described there. I would have thought these were related to the transport layer. No?
- [rtcweb] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rtcwe… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [rtcweb] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-r… Sean Turner