Re: [rtcweb] Updated -gateways draft

Hi
It would be good if it is a standards track as 3GPP depends on it and 
all implementations would confirm to it . having it as Informational is 
really not of much use.

- Ranjit

On 2015-07-06 5:35 pm, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Harald Alvestrand
> <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> 
>> Uwe and I have prepared a new -gateways draft (version -01).
>> 
>> I don't think there's much controversial in it, and there's only
>> one
>> issue that I think needs WG time at this time:
>> 
>> Should it be Informational or Standards-track?
>> 
>> An informational document defines guidance for how gateways should
>> behave, but nobody needs to pay attention if they don't want to.
>> 
>> A standards-track document (which no other RTCWEB document should
>> be
>> dependent on) defines requirements for how things that call
>> themselves
>> "WebRTC gateways" should behave, but nobody needs to call their
>> gateways
>> that, and anyway, there's no protocol police, so the difference
>> isn't
>> all that much in practice.
>> 
>> More important: What do people want it to be?
> 
> I think we adopted it in part because 3GPP had a dependency on it.
> Does it need to be standards track for them to reference it?
> 
> Ted
> 
>> Harald
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb [1]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb