Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 21 March 2017 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2EB127B57; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hv9vkV0f10gP; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53C6B12F28A; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C202A7C63EA; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:09:58 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v4nPQI6N_4gu; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:09:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1::5ea] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1::5ea]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D62527C56E3; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:09:57 +0100 (CET)
To: Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>, ops-dir@ietf.org
References: <148977468781.13113.11027871370786405378@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview.all@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <8d6db7a5-7677-8561-26ac-78de4f53534e@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:09:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <148977468781.13113.11027871370786405378@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/yHCRgoAN49sVd5bJGmsrCc0VN-A>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:10:06 -0000

Den 17. mars 2017 19:18, skrev Jon Mitchell:
> Reviewer: Jon Mitchell
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
> 
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These 
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
> aspects of the 
> IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be
> included in AD reviews 
> during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments 
> just like any other last call comments. 
> 
> This document is an overall of the WebRTC protocols that are
> considered a "minimum" set to claim compliance with the standard the
> draft sets forth.  As far as I can tell, no new protocols or
> implementation details are contained in the draft and operational
> concerns largely are covered (or not) by the many referenced protocol
> specifications within it.  Therefore, I believe this draft is Ready,
> although there is some question in my mind of whether this is actually
> a standards track versus best current practice document as
> interoperability from the standpoint of this document seems to not
> require any new on the wire negotiation (outside of each individual's
> protocols negotiations).
> 
> 

Thanks for the review!

At one point I wondered if the correct designation for this document was
the rarely-used "Applicability Statement". The WG decided to not do
process experiments with this one, but did want it on the standards
track - ie "informational" was not appropriate.

AS documents are standards-track documents.