Re: [rtcweb] Call for adoption of draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways

>  Since a gateway is expected to be deployed where it can be reached with a static IP address (as seen from the client), a WebRTC gateway does not need to support full ICE; it therefore MAY implement ICE-Lite only.

Even if the only useful statement defined by the draft was that, I say +1.

I support this draft so no one can request (again) that all the WebRTC
entities MUST support full ICE (which is a resource and time waste in
servers).

Thanks for this.

2014-12-04 20:29 GMT+01:00 Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>:
> Having reviewed the fine technical comments on this draft since we asked for comments, the chairs have noted that multiple people seem to have read the draft. Given this great news we are going make a call for adoption.
>
> If you have an opinion, please email the list by Dec 19 and let us know if you either:
>
> A) yes, draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways should be adopted as a WG document now
>
> B) no, not right now
>
> If we get consensus around A we will work with ADs on milestone. Otherwise we will encourage the authors to keep working on this draft and continue using this email list. We may adopt it later or include the text in other drafts.
>
> Thanks,
> The Chairs (Cullen, Sean, Ted)
>
> PS - if you want to send an email that says more than A or B, feel free to change the subject, start a new thread etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>