IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Transport -15 submitted, still some issues

Andy Hutton <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 04 August 2016 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECFE12D600 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 eMS0C0d5AJbc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01295127058 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id f6so323871796ith.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 08:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FC0RnnmJzVEikjpME2h4kVVEkM6wom24s2XEiobWR0Q=; b=g9GCe+Auz+lOrBQSzNevfsPEjTuc0BBc9Mkwhm62ycmcfHqd+nmSgzfTsQhfSEJCJp 6t4GTfHlO6QZ8IGXWHeNi7M9fRK8MQVGKzGXcFYAQ+YilclxuQ9DekVhpVl22Hk/QXcy KHrnLsaEonQaIZqBJ7L9RQoCdsGkrl3Ri5rdeI+Alnpdzle8jOL3YqiM8Dzy7JkqT6JW kefuQzRVLWzCgLavkw+gmt3VqnRvPlPUFx6bXh69KZzICIpcIZqPYofHTxAQo+o9ptNt 0aVVFZNd5npeJEEVok9LPEL5NKdW4C4jkdQISFrv2WI70J/TajwRe7kF2ubWPbTlsz8E EMcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FC0RnnmJzVEikjpME2h4kVVEkM6wom24s2XEiobWR0Q=; b=V36et+RMHYTTWjc1WArAhNafpwwtbap7QHV0lNICruVAoUTURZ6yHrP8Yd1M6dCAv8 eUNTE5sRZ5rGkCaZ3NLJ4b3l6GKJLy14OwGRMIHFkftJ/8e0KfFF7YZrAWelV1L292LQ 2ZlMt35XSdU1WEEp+2GI6pjHsCQK3ZXuhJjKSUMckPz39vcdzjJl5VVbQQLeTcNx9kq0 CLK1Ju5bXrgadXx38HTffyQDfUCgj8OpTipzx54JwWzyiFoxpJruRTFNRNHx/jvnnX/S PAQimyrJ9DkErMMtrMiKiOPmyhY3FZhHh3GMZxcwmkV4pEadfEKDeNlFfj8MGtIUYpXw WoYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousdnKacKhEBggJsmJmJzZqXbb8nHTYyFtaTms1MR0XD2btvtugekUcQYnQK2x1MX4Yb858LPnlPZeYrWg==
X-Received: by 10.36.111.65 with SMTP id x62mr6607001itb.32.1470325372202; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 08:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.0.26 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <21a3cec4-c913-d3a9-b3a6-f9ccbb34fb09@alvestrand.no>
References: <cf9cb590-1c11-ce0a-07ad-274221db3999@alvestrand.no> <CAB7PXwTCRdkUE1ptj48x2wghGvHX9hszB1yAkjCRjo0XEmX04A@mail.gmail.com> <21a3cec4-c913-d3a9-b3a6-f9ccbb34fb09@alvestrand.no>
From: Andy Hutton <andyhutton.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:42:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB7PXwTWCVhw1d0MtaRVTTBmgnCYS4Q-v7xDJ95NsK+Ni3UdKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144cb0883dbc7053940cd76"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/fjySpD9u54fiS4YjmUtyo0Q6CmU>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transport -15 submitted, still some issues
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:42:55 -0000

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:
>
> Den 04. aug. 2016 14:40, skrev Andy Hutton:
> > Harald,
> >
> > I don't think that #42 is really a technical change can you explain why
> > why you think it is?
> >
>
> Because it introduces two new drafts that have to be understood in order
> to completely understand the specification, one of which is expired.
>
> While these are at MAY strength, I don't see how it's editorial.

Ok understood it is not just editorial however I am not suggesting any
change to currently specified procedures only that the procedures are
correctly referenced.  As I pointed out in my original WGLC comment *
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg15900.html) the
current text regarding how TURN servers are discovered is in my opinion
insufficient.

I think describing correctly how TURN servers are discovered is an
important aspect of the transports draft.

The fact that the -return- draft has expired and the fact that the meeting
time in Berlin in which we were supposed to discuss it was cancelled is a
bit frustrating. I spoke to Ben Schwartz in Berlin and my understanding was
that he intends to update the draft. If RETURN is going to be implemented
then it is I believe important that transports mentions it.

If on the other hand RETURN is not going to be implemented and the draft
abandoned then this is also something that should be discussed in the WG.


>
> > The referencing of -return- was mentioned in te AD evaluation by Alissa
> > see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg15943.html
>
> I can't see -return- in the referenced message; where do you see it?
>
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > On Thursday, 4 August 2016, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no
> > <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
> >
> >     I have submitted -15 and closed those issues that I believe it
resolves.
> >     There are six left in the tracker: One I forgot (#40), one raised
today
> >     in the IESG (#41), and Andy's "RETURN reference" issue (#42), as
well as
> >     3 issues where I suggested "no change" as a resolution.
> >
> >     Comments welcome!
> >
> >     Note - I believe #41 and #42 are technical changes, so should
formally
> >     require IESG re-processing. I believe the others are editorial in
> >     nature, so can be done without a new IESG pass.
> >
> >     Harald
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     rtcweb mailing list
> >     rtcweb@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email