Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 05/29/2015 08:24 PM, Black, David wrote:
>> Also the above statement indicates a need for a new API to notify the
>> application about the loss of ability and this is some thing outside the
>> scope of this document.
> At the moment, the new API is in scope, as it's discussed in section 7:
>
> 7.  API Recommendations
>
>    The W3C specification [W3C-WEBRTC] may provide an API hook that
>    generates an event when consent has expired for a given 5-tuple,
>    meaning that transmission of data has ceased.  This could indicate
>    what application data is affected, such as media or data channels.
>
> If that section remains in the draft, I would be happy with adding one
> sentence to the end of that paragraph:
>
>    That API hook could also include other reasons for loss of ability
>    to send data, e.g., tripping of the circuit breaker mechanism
>    discussed in section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage].
>
> Alternatively, Section 7 could be deleted - I could live with that,
> although I'd prefer that section 7 remain, as I'd expect readers to
> be interested in how an application learns that consent has expired.

I'd prefer to limit the number of documents that try to design APIs.

Can we do something more generic, like "Applications that use the RTWEB
transport will need to be notified when transmission ceases due to
expiry of consent. The design of APIs to carry these notifications is
out of scope for this document."?