Re: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-24: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 10 June 2015 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C45E1B3264; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZZFiAFL34IHQ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D6391B3260; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igblz2 with SMTP id lz2so37019339igb.1; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XyHVUnvzu5LRLMxwroGVSn/SM52/TGTmn5nWDzukeis=; b=PcMEI9Bt79cQIIbJmswWjG27NMRqg8d9b8NTHsy5f78+Y4qGLaWWYm4/rduhWCsS6a iJND+1SUOwJSwoQm45NJFBrA/DAGXsH91noNvejFBcd57a9ZeL9STIFdiZJRSL+0JlH4 nAOWksVNyBFGGdAf8emn/Zzw3NAV3b4xv82DoN9WSPmcMHX3I4mp9dzfh2SAA9b9i0Ht u7/laq7hCJ+tQ7MeTBZ7MNdUOVrvfuBOyFHHQ76hE7kPmLWDAiD+cKE6OnMjkq7hvN71 hd6BUfn5IZbUFNCc6sJyCwg7xfAItXSMus5IeuAUzamGhngo09yvXQIeAA4a2P+bbwMM CHgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id z3mr6846162igl.12.1433952455691; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:07:35 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: twdC6GeavPBJa3uAgr2tiGMRZFQ
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-24: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:07:37 -0000

> However, my personal view is that IETF need to be able to reference concept
> and basic definitions from informational documents without making it
> normative references. Otherwise we will have a lot of things in the downref
> registry and not be able to find when we end up in actual real issues with
> protocol mechanisms and their source and maturity. That is why I intended to
> leave draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview as an informational reference.

Well, I think normative references are all those that you *need* in
order to understand the document.  If you don't read rtcweb-overview
and understand the terminology in it... would you be able to properly
understand this document?

That said, I'll leave it to your judgment here, and won't argue the
point further.

[And as a side point, I'm working with some other folks on an update
to BCP 97.  The update would *not* require that these sorts of
documents go into the downref registry, but would instead give
judgment to the IESG on the right way to handle this while making sure
that normative references were sufficiently mature.  Because I agree
that the downref registry was never *meant* for documents that are
only used for terminology.]