[Rum] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-rum-rue-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rum-rue-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rum-rue/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Bernard Adoba for the TSVART review. It largely informs my DISCUSS.

1. If I understand correctly, this draft is not at all about interoperating
with a WebRTC endpoint, instead borrowing some requirements from that family of
specs rather than re-inventing the wheel. That's great, but putting that
explicitly in the intro would be helpful.

2. In particular, the statement that RUE is a "non-browser endpoint" is
confusing if it's not actually meant to interoperate with WebRTC. I *think*
you're attempting to distinguish between WebRTC's browser-only requirements and
endpoint requirements, but I could be wrong here.

3. In Section 5.5, you require conformance with RFC8835 with a few vaguely
worded exceptions. It would be helpful to actually go through that document
enumerate exactly which normative statements in 8835 do not apply. That said,
I'm not sure I agree with Bernard that 8835 requires *use* of ICE, rather than
support, but maybe we can clarify this in the TSVART thread.

4. As Bernard points out, this ambiguity extends to IPv4 and 6 support. The
8835 requirements are specific to browsers, so they might not apply. If you
require support for both, but not necessarily on the same device, it would be
good to say so.

5. In Sec. 6, it says "This specification adopts the media specifications for
WebRTC ([RFC8825])." Is this a normative statement? Must RUEs comply with the
entirety of that document, or is this an informative statement and the real
requirements are in the subsections of Sec 6? From the discussion, it sounds
like you want to include the requirements for WebRTC "endpoints", but not for
WebRTC "browsers". It would help to clarify all this.

It's also possible that my initial understanding is incorrect, in which case
the later points don't make any sense and some explanatory text is needed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your work to make the internet more accessible for all.