[straw] RTCP document: Proposed Standard or Best Current Practice?

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Fri, 10 June 2016 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A741812D1E4 for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 y1dWJBRJpdTj for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpcmd0986.aruba.it (smtpcmd0986.aruba.it [62.149.156.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3919912D0A3 for <straw@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lminiero ([95.238.194.65]) by smtpcmd09.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id 4ymb1t0071R7qa701ymbFS; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:46:35 +0200
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:46:34 +0200
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: straw@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20160610124634.028fd73e@lminiero>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.29; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/straw/UlTj3vhHSMtcb38KrMTDU1t5r74>
Subject: [straw] RTCP document: Proposed Standard or Best Current Practice?
X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" <straw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/straw/>
List-Post: <mailto:straw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:46:38 -0000

Hi all,

I just published a new version of the RTCP document, that hopefully
now addresses all the very useful comments Ben provided in his
latest detailed review:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-12

One last notable point remains to be clarified, that is related to the
intended scope of the document. The draft is currently "Standards
Track", something Ben is not sure about, considering this might mean
expecting B2BUA developers to implement this. Besides, the document is
more trying to discipline the behaviour of components that, for one
reason or another, are not always adhering to specifications that
should already prevent the broken behaviours the draft tries to
address. In order to make sure the WG would be aware of this discussion
and not have it buried under the other discussions we had around the
document itself, Ben suggested to open a new post to discuss
specifically about this and get the WG's feeling on the matter.

As I said a few posts ago, I'd rather keep the document "Proposed
Standard" than changing it to a "Best Current Practice", mainly because
we want it to have an actual impact and stress the importance of doing
things right in that context. Besides, the DTLS-SRTP document was
published as "Standards Track" too, and I believe the aim of the two
documents was similar. Anyway, I obviously wouldn't fight changing it to
"Best Current Practice", as we are talking about guidelines on the
behaviour to follow.

What is your opinion on this? Any reason to change the scope of the
document, or any reason not to?

Thanks!
Lorenzo