Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 27, 2022, at 13:49, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2022-03-27
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-05
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. 
> However, there are some issues that should be considered before final approval.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues:
>    I found myself confused as a reader about one aspect of this document  The
>    document seems to describe both the Interface to the JSEP and the details
>    of what the underlying system must do in response to JSEP operations.  The
>    later is described very well and clearly.  The former is described quite
>    vaguely.  I suspect that the assumption is that the required parameters are
>    described in the W3C documents.  But it is hard to tell, and the only
>    formal reference is a vague citation in the introduction to an outdated W3C
>    specification.  A little more clarity on how an implementor is supposed to
>    know what actual interface objects, methods, and parameters they need to
>    provide would be helpful.  Also, the reference should be updated to
>    whatever is the current W3C specification.

Will check on updating the reference. I would be floored if we couldn’t point to it.

The basic idea here is that the W3C WebRTC spec is API and this is the protocol spec.

> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 
>