Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways

[Victor Pascual Avila <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Den 29. april 2015 17:27, skrev Hutton, Andrew:
>> So to be clear my understanding is that the draft status will be changed to "Informational" and the abstract will be changed to remove the statement about specifying "conformance requirements".  Is that correct?
>>
>> The draft is therefore not intended to specify conformance requirements but will provide implementation guidance.
>>
>
> Yes, that's my plan.
>

Fine with me.

-Victor


>
>> Regards
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Harald
>>> Alvestrand
>>> Sent: 22 April 2015 17:20
>>> To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich); Sean
>>> Turner; [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-
>>> gateways
>>>
>>> Den 22. april 2015 17:36, skrev Gaelle Martin-Cocher:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I do have some concerns with this proposal.
>>>> From https://www.ietf.org/mail-
>>> archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13885.html
>>>> I was under impression that the gateway would be an informational
>>> draft and there was no desire to specify conformance requirements.
>>>>
>>>> The current text describes high level functions that can be expected
>>> from a gateway but does not define clearly what would be required to
>>> conform to.
>>>> If the intend of the draft is to specify conformance requirements
>>> (first sentence of the abstract) there could be more requirements to
>>> relax and the current requirements would need to be define more
>>> clearly.
>>>> Is it the intend?
>>>
>>> I have not updated the intro - I think feedback was reasonably clear
>>> that an informational document was wanted, we want to give advice, but
>>> not to dictate what implementations do.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it is, here are some examples:
>>>> While the WebRTC Gateway is described in the abstract (but not only,
>>> see section 1) as "a class of
>>>>    WebRTC-compatible endpoints called "WebRTC gateways" ", section 2
>>> states that WebRTC gateway are "expected to conform to the requirements
>>> for WebRTC non-browsers in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], with the
>>> exceptions defined in this section"
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be clearer to just define the WebRTC gateway from the
>>> WebRTC non-browser rather than from an unspecified WebRTC-compatible
>>> endpoint?
>>>> It might provide a better understanding of what the gateway should be
>>> conforming to.
>>>>
>>>> Requirements in 2, either:
>>>> - are clear: e.g. the gateway MUST support DTLS-SRTP
>>>> - describe what the gateway MAY NOT support....see second to last
>>> paragraph
>>>> - or leave some ambiguity: The gateway does not have to do X (e.g.
>>> full ICE); so it may do Y (e.g. ICE-Lite).
>>>> Playing devil's advocate: can there be a gateway doing yet something
>>> else?
>>>> What would it conform to?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the requirement be reworded to state what the gateway MAY
>>> or SHALL do/support.... and conform to?
>>>>
>>>> Section 1.1 and 1.2 seems unclear if meant to belong to a conformance
>>> requirements draft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is unclear to me if the purpose of the draft is to define
>>> conformance requirements for WebRTC gateway, or is to focus on relaxing
>>> some requirements for gateways as per section 2, or is an informational
>>> description of what can be expected from a WebRTC 'compatible' gateway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Gaëlle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>> Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:52 PM
>>>> To: ext Harald Alvestrand; Sean Turner; [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-
>>> gateways
>>>>
>>>> +1 for adoption.
>>>>
>>>> The same question that Harald raised came to my mind - there was
>>> another adoption call end of last year with a lot of support
>>> (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg14050.html).
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Uwe
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Von: rtcweb [[e-mail]]&quot; im Auftrag von &quot;ext
>>> Harald Alvestrand [[e-mail]]
>>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. April 2015 07:46
>>>> An: Sean Turner; [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Betreff: Re: [rtcweb] WG call for adoption: draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-
>>> gateways
>>>>
>>>> On 04/16/2015 08:15 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> There's been some interest expressed in having
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways/
>>> adopted as an RTCWeb WG item.  Please respond to say whether you
>>> support adoption of this work as a working group work item and whether
>>> you will participate in the discussion.   If you are opposed to this
>>> draft becoming a WG document, please say so (and say why).  Please have
>>> your response in by 20150423 23:59 UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>>>
>>>>> spt
>>>> Naturally, I support adoption.
>>>>
>>>> Question: Is this a repeat of the exercise on which Cullen reported
>>> consensus for adoption in December 2014, or is this a side effect of
>>> starting fomal tracking of adoption status?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb



-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila