Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25.txt

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 15 June 2015 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090A71A89FE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 4BUDrF9lanhA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CFE11B33B6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 00:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794d6d000004501-c9-557e7eb87a6d
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 38.9F.17665.8BE7E755; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:28:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:28:55 +0200
Message-ID: <557E7EB6.1090405@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:28:54 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <20150612112739.17037.10147.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <557AC310.5000007@ericsson.com> <548F16B7-DFFE-42AA-8693-8B0BC6B4C59C@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <548F16B7-DFFE-42AA-8693-8B0BC6B4C59C@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6OurpQg7kLhSymn/nLaLH2Xzu7 A5PHlycvmTyWLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJUx/3UrY8FP/ornu0+xNTC283YxcnJICJhI PHvRygphi0lcuLeeDcQWEjjKKPFpqUkXIxeQvZxR4tXprWBFvALaEse2XWYEsVkEVCUmPVzG DmKzCVhI3PzRCNYsKhAlMfXxOhaIekGJkzOfgNkiQPVXj/0Aq2EWEJV49XAKM4gtLOAiMXnS LUaIZZMZJQ7MWQ82lFPATuJ12wSgxRxADfYSD7aWQfTKSzRvnc0Mcai2RENTB+sERsFZSNbN QuiYhaRjASPzKkbR4tTi4tx0I2O91KLM5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzAYD245bfuDsbVrx0PMQpwMCrx 8Cb8rA0VYk0sK67MPcQozcGiJM47Y3NeqJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQZGvTXC uYHHm6dsP/bdpHbrqcfs/r9WSWd0Hz3w9HpqU4vT9ZP8vJGlF+89to1Z3vpQ92fs3T9Fnfwv 3uUsPKU8+7xjwfITDXs1Pauf6ra7H3htLXFde27prYfa8x/uV8zSYwupOsqccC/dT0Ry8u5J H76mrNLoWXnD8CnX594t3d9nd3TdCl58QomlOCPRUIu5qDgRAL9Oz2c3AgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/f9Stz9uScXXcr6MkAF1w3_FHHgY>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25.txt
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 07:29:01 -0000

Alissa Cooper skrev den 2015-06-12 22:33:
> On Jun 12, 2015, at 4:31 AM, Magnus Westerlund
> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Because the suggestion to make
> draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update was in a comment from Barry
> that you didn’t seem to agree with, I was not expecting it to change
> from informative to normative. I don’t particularly agree with the
> comment either, because it creates exactly the situation we’re in now
> — since many terminology documents are not standards track documents,
> requiring terminology documents to be normative references just
> bloats the downref registry and adds a bunch of unnecessary process
> delays without realistically impacting interoperability. So I would
> prefer if draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update remains an
> informative reference, which is a change we can make in an RFC Editor
> note. The document was approved by the IESG with the reference as
> such.

Ok, I have no issues with it remaining informative reference. I think 
the rtp-topologies-update will be end up on the downref list anyway 
eventually, but we can wait until it is actually an RFC ;-).

rtp-topologies-update is a grey zone document even by my standards. But, 
I have no strong opinions here.

>
> Let me know if you are anyone else has a problem with that. I will
> still wait a week before approving so the WG can review all the other
> changes.
>
>> But, please check the changes:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25
>>

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------