Re: [rtcweb] Transport -15 submitted, still some issues

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 6:43 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thank you, Harald, for processing all the comments so efficiently.
> 
>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:45 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> I have submitted -15 and closed those issues that I believe it resolves.
>> There are six left in the tracker: One I forgot (#40), one raised today
>> in the IESG (#41), and Andy's "RETURN reference" issue (#42), as well as
>> 3 issues where I suggested "no change" as a resolution.
>> 
>> Comments welcome!
>> 
>> Note - I believe #41 and #42 are technical changes, so should formally
>> require IESG re-processing. I believe the others are editorial in
>> nature, so can be done without a new IESG pass.
> 
> For #41, Mirja has suggested the following text:
> 
> "For transport of media, secure RTP is used.  The details of the profile of RTP used are described in "RTP Usage“ [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage], which mandates the use of a circuit breaker [draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17] and congestion control (see [draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09] for further guidance).“
> 
> This is non-normative text suggested in a non-blocking comment, and it’s up to the WG to decide whether to include it. But whether or not it gets included, if the text is along the lines that she suggests then the document will not have to be re-processed by the IESG.

Apologies, before I sent this I failed to see that Mirja changed her ballot position from COMMENT to DISCUSS. So this issue requires a resolution before the document can be approved for publication.

Alissa