Re: [tram] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-tram-01-01: (with BLOCK)

OK, so I'm fine with "doing the right thing". The definitions of "doing the
right thing" seem to be either

- adding pointers to other (non-RTCWeb) uses, or

- dropping the mention of RTCWeb and phrasing this as general-purpose NAT
traversal.

So, if we're going to add pointers, I note that the shiny new ICE charter
says this:

"Interactive Connectivity Establishment was published as RFC 5245 in April
2010. Until recently the protocol had seen rather limited deployment. This
situation has changed drastically as ICE is mandatory to implement in
WebRTC, a set of technologies developed at the IETF and W3C to standardize
Real Time Communication on the Web. ICE was originally defined for the
Offer-Answer (RFC 3264) protocol used by SIP (RFC 3261). Later XMPP
(XEP-0176), RTSP (draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat), RTCWeb
(draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep) and other realtime media establishment protocols
have used the protocol. ICE is also used by non-realtime media protocols,
like HIP (RFC 5770) and RELOAD (RFC 6940)."

What else is applicable to TRAM, that's not on that list? Not that the TRAM
charter list needs to be exhaustive, of course.

Spencer

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

>
> On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
> wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On 10/14/2015 12:28 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > Le 2015-10-14 14:24, Spencer Dawkins at IETF a écrit :
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>     BLOCK:
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>     I'm a little confused. Is the charter going for external review or
> not?
> >>     Or is the IESG being asked to comment on whether it should go for
> >>     external review or not? If it were going for external review I
> would
> >>     have
> >>     put my point below in a comment. But if this is the last
> opportunity for
> >>     the IESG to weigh in on this then I'd like to see the point below
> >>     discussed. I don't think this charter needs to go for external
> review.
> >
> > I don't know what "external review" is.
> >
> >>     My substantive point has to do with the scoping and use cases being
> >>     dealt
> >>     with in TRAM. I feel like some of the confusion over the TRAM
> drafts has
> >>     related to whether the mechanisms being specified are expected to
> be
> >>     used
> >>     only within the WebRTC context or outside of it as well, for
> STUN/TURN
> >>     generally. I'd like to see a commitment to clarity in this regard
> called
> >>     out in the charter. E.g., "In making updates to TURN and STUN, the
> >>     working group will clearly document the motivations and
> implications of
> >>     the updates both within the WebRTC context and more broadly" or
> >>     something
> >>     like that.
> >
> > I'd be fine with adding that sentence to the charter.
> >
>
> I do not want WebRTC (well, RTCWeb) to get a special status in the TRAM
> WG, same as I did not want it to get a special status in the ICE WG.
> Both these WGs should focus on "making the Internet work better".  So I
> am fine in enumerating the list of technologies that use the output from
> TRAM (among them RTCWeb), or I am fine with a general commitment to make
> everything works better, but not with the text above.  Again,
> RTCWeb/WebRTC is not special.
>
>
> I suggested the sentence above because there are already a couple of
> “special” mentions of WebRTC in the TRAM charter. If those stay in I think
> my clarification suggestion should stay too.
>
> Alissa
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>
>
>