Re: [rtcweb] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtcweb-01-02: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 04 February 2021 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A629D3A1079; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 17:53:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYdkFL55F7nN; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 17:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F873A1078; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 17:52:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t15so446187ual.6; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 17:52:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r8XVUss/NafBwxzSqUT6ObMZqCgzr1Zuz8AI4h6vj2Q=; b=M/rJAyBZKRAe/7aQZmY+zYhcJH2YqO8CBLHvbBooZdOTR+cFWI7Ez0Z0iMS/4BfpUd qjY7v4yVQUchKEH5jMWY/bOW8zk5ry6N/Hy8530jom17zeqJndRWwwjmq3ijVY/buEyZ izkb7355EhMoCN1jAbW7G5LF0lYGZ4qzbCvvbsoIavX2+rYUq4q17QLVuR+b9voEHtRS EDCidJ7ulEMJQBPUu2kkTPwPTBtCl8X63Dv1vfGjnu/3Dn9/l+eaqM2mOgBomYTFv6dK a9aR79igJpr3qdYULXzhWGqEPo2Z5QJP0L7mEQIOdBaC8ymKUc4cGOWRQ59mLy6CJiTT lC0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r8XVUss/NafBwxzSqUT6ObMZqCgzr1Zuz8AI4h6vj2Q=; b=rgtRwV3eG0UpizbcKJdqDMkuFjHMoqG3lRZJ3omUjR9c+lGEr7h4olL4qRMzQrRiIt RSIUT8pKGKvDlPbciWYPk38R72sV6DkF3TXUZNQCX4P/X99GVXZOaL35cgjgPY41UCzn NK+jmT6uqQUd43v0lZVNDb2r9INLnmLR77ecdXInYJE0Ec3CuCWPJwpFmhlpjl1LLA0m Jr7B5Wt2p0LPccwD7XNuzJsBa78+FXGxCCNoH1wvA7vpUSitUme54GLdr7GppGnpQ/ch AXke4omBeuB1fh6t46g5S7kqBiH5X+sCsSqSP9AWRfo2Mao+OtIwV6D57s4hTQTcdjWy dQpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rkt2//lA0in4UcnhkYVgVp6yackaLZQjfN6ImAeNtDjL/weBr e29xxKpXmDofOQ+reDKZXq2dBXAKuMaOBGPo6CE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykCOj2nfhMzqLsO+Eojz82BS+0q1Aa40g+SpAMdp6iz9DZmOBfBhUIl/ioovKbXnaAhVOcPoaHXFjl/ZQ+dDQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2628:: with SMTP id 37mr3838706uag.87.1612403577737; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 17:52:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 17:52:46 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007c572005ba78f6ab"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtcweb-01-02: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 01:53:01 -0000

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 8:40 AM Magnus Westerlund <> wrote:

> I would note that this do make me ask about the intention here. So
> draft-ietf-
> rtcweb-sdp is currently an Approved AD sponsored document.

After you pointed out that it would probably need to be updated, it was
returned to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup, with plans for this WG to update
it after it resolves the JSEP/BUNDLE question.  And then I added it to the
charter with a corresponding milestone.

So what does it mean
> to "update accordingly" here. Is the intention to retract the apprval and
> send
> the document to this WG for update, or to publish the current and then
> replace
> it?

Approval has already been retracted, and the plan (given the text you cited
and the milestone) is to return it to the WG to be updated before it's
published, taking into account however the WG decides to resolve the
question being put to it.

I don't think doing an late stage text changes even to an informal document
> is particular good here. So I hope you intended to give the WG formal
> ownership
> of the change and then have to run through the normal publication process
> for
> this updated document?


>From my perspective I do think you need to be a bit more verbose about this
> document and that the WG is chartered to take on this draft (again) or
> that they
> should do an update.

Sure, I can do that.