IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Transport -15 submitted, still some issues

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 04 August 2016 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51AB12D51C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jcJ-Q5o914od for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A138F12D18F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88C27C8F69; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:05:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zs-bnW4m7PoZ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:05:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1:fd3f:129d:cdbc:a28d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1:fd3f:129d:cdbc:a28d]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E9E67C8EF9; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:05:28 +0200 (CEST)
To: Andy Hutton <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <cf9cb590-1c11-ce0a-07ad-274221db3999@alvestrand.no> <CAB7PXwTCRdkUE1ptj48x2wghGvHX9hszB1yAkjCRjo0XEmX04A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <21a3cec4-c913-d3a9-b3a6-f9ccbb34fb09@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:05:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB7PXwTCRdkUE1ptj48x2wghGvHX9hszB1yAkjCRjo0XEmX04A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/TCePMFv0GS30EOxtJ4T1zKe1wAk>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transport -15 submitted, still some issues
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 13:05:37 -0000

Den 04. aug. 2016 14:40, skrev Andy Hutton:
> Harald,
> 
> I don't think that #42 is really a technical change can you explain why
> why you think it is?
> 

Because it introduces two new drafts that have to be understood in order
to completely understand the specification, one of which is expired.

While these are at MAY strength, I don't see how it's editorial.

> The referencing of -return- was mentioned in te AD evaluation by Alissa
> see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg15943.html

I can't see -return- in the referenced message; where do you see it?

> 
> Andy
> 
> On Thursday, 4 August 2016, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no
> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
> 
>     I have submitted -15 and closed those issues that I believe it resolves.
>     There are six left in the tracker: One I forgot (#40), one raised today
>     in the IESG (#41), and Andy's "RETURN reference" issue (#42), as well as
>     3 issues where I suggested "no change" as a resolution.
> 
>     Comments welcome!
> 
>     Note - I believe #41 and #42 are technical changes, so should formally
>     require IESG re-processing. I believe the others are editorial in
>     nature, so can be done without a new IESG pass.
> 
>     Harald
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <javascript:;>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email