Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-10.txt

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> However, I still have an issue with the text saying:
>
>         "A WebRTC implementation [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which
> implements
>         full ICE, MUST perform consent freshness test using STUN request/
>         response as described below:"
>
>
> First, I question whether this document should make normative requirements
> on WebRTC? Shouldn't some WebRTC document instead mandate the usage?
>
> Second, what if a non-WebRTC implementation wants to use the mechanism?
> The procedures are described below the text above, so the way I read it
> they only apply to WebRTC implementations.
>
> Third, *IF* the scope of the mechanism is only WebRTC (perhaps it is, and
> I have misunderstood), I think we need to have some explicit text
> indicating that.
>
> Fourth, if you want to use terminology from [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] you
> need to make sure it's aligned with that draft. I don't think "WebRTC
> implementation" exists in draft-rtcweb-overview-13, so you would have to
> define that as a browser, non-browser or compatible endpoint (or, use those
> terminologies).
>

Fully agreed.

Fifth issue: The rtcweb-overview reference would need to be normative (it
is currently informative).

I suggest to simply remove the whole paragraph and the reference.

Simon