[rtcweb] References to -overview (Re: Unresolved normative references in IETF RTCWEB WG documents)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Sun, 18 August 2013 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D07D11E8272 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 02:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B+8eANreW6Dk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 02:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5118D11E8279 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 02:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9D039E128; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:37:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z09z-JFVz4y1; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:37:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] (c-58f0e555.03-217-73746f1.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se []) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 498AC39E080; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:37:48 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <521095EB.7070500@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:37:47 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130804 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
References: <BLU169-W11426A149ADD0123A6BEF4C93460@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W11426A149ADD0123A6BEF4C93460@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090802070604030805070103"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] References to -overview (Re: Unresolved normative references in IETF RTCWEB WG documents)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 09:37:57 -0000

On 08/15/2013 11:03 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I've taken a look at the unresolved normative references in all of the
> current RTCWEB WG work items.  Here are some comments. 
> *Overall comment*
> Several of the documents (draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage,
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-security) have a normative reference to
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview, while others do not
> (draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio,
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel, draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol,
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch).  While it probably makes sense for
> some documents to reference an overview of WebRTC, the overview
> document also functions as an overview of work relating to WebRTC, so
> that it has 9 unresolved normative dependencies.  The effect of a
> normative reference to the overview document is therefore to delay
> publication until all of the overview normative dependencies are
> resolved.  I am therefore wondering whether the normative references
> to the overview document are really necessary, or whether the
> dependencies shouldn't just go one way (e.g. from the overview to the
> other docs).  
In my opinion, the normal case should be that references to -overview
are informative, not normative. Documents should be published when
they're ready.

Most likely, the proper form is something like "This document specifies
a protocol intended for use within the WebRTC effort, but is not
restricted to that context. An overview of the WebRTC effort is given in

Or something like that.