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

Sean Turner <> Tue, 29 March 2022 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140AE3A10BA for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQ6vlwsJ4N_w for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB6E3A0E5C for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 1so13101652qke.1 for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=M967Pg6xSJcmRhABgQlNO5ZtrHZ6xxG82Nh7TvaJ55s=; b=d7y72XS5DdJh3+1IL9yYmM6NUt8kTlvedCjwr80HXqW9iTxh94Td1NVhLJNwrLn7uZ gFbPUTxGVqG7t5aK76kU2TUJi2zXZ/1GeA4rXvjJu2wp1ZC6jOBxMNF21Mgy4UX7lUPL kS5udyRT+eGy/8t965eQCskwy8pYoNja482TM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=M967Pg6xSJcmRhABgQlNO5ZtrHZ6xxG82Nh7TvaJ55s=; b=1rdfzzICXMb19jKY+0NMmisAQkI1Ql9UqkDy5hRCfWR+K2SjVsJzinHou+ZJzD/V3A CgiBJzxUSb1gMZvZPCF3rc9SSsoMrjj0pXQa1EXLKkSoItme5MxozRzNXqHqdTaImlDO 9u8wT2pmSRnHiAjV9w2DBoTwtKMFDc/PdO9jeUiKvMNSJRNHcUX8Ak+7jI5uhVuXMYkT qCHE4/FTg0EbKBfw2IGSS4Mj7tyPMOx//CvjBFByupkOOIKYrZpKfp3HWg0ATrlIjHcl ZDeNGWt388nf9I8Ayb9PkyYDlbLkjUqRf9+Z9Yv8F8ikoBTHVnbZwfRdfOc0vdjSBxI7 Ec3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532R5mzqGRNm3AZBe3RkKVtUecdF2JCU30w1evshj0vOT8MLQ+A7 lsU83oekTQRvJEDjlNtRbEHfmw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzImPlq+uNGb///VdbPfRFgzRPoTfF/Q2N+guPv8h/5R2XAP+n53LSM1bscwDMsXKW5Wa0jzQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:489:b0:67b:31cb:fbca with SMTP id 9-20020a05620a048900b0067b31cbfbcamr19296623qkr.701.1648522055788; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v12-20020a05622a130c00b002e1b3ccd9adsm14078610qtk.79.2022. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Sean Turner <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:47:34 -0400
Cc:,,, RTCWeb IETF <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 02:47:42 -0000

> On Mar 27, 2022, at 13:49, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <> 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
> <>.
> 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: