Re: [Wish] Artart early review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-08

[Sergio Garcia Murillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

Thank you very much for your review, I have fixed some of the issues you
raised in your review, but I would need some feedback for the main ones
regarding IANA registration.
I will address that in a different email so we can discuss it easily by
email

On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 8:18 PM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Murray has specifically asked for a review of the IANA Considerations
> section,
> and I have a bunch of comments there.  One general comment first, though:
>
> Throughout the document you refer to both “URI” and “URL”, seemingly
> interchangably.  I would feel much better if you stuck with “URI”
> consistently
> throughout.  For example, in Section 4.4:
>
> > Each STUN/TURN server will be returned using the "Link" header
> > field [RFC8288] with a "rel" attribute value of "ice-server".
> > The Link target URI is the server URL as defined in [RFC7064]
> > and [RFC7065].
>
> But if you look in RFCs 7064 and 7065, there is no ocurrance of “URL” in
> either; the both say “URI”, and anyone looking in them for “the server URL”
> will not find it.
>

Changed to URI as per your review:
https://github.com/wish-wg/webrtc-http-ingest-protocol/commit/cacdd61ea2d3be1e99fae9c280529d44742eaedc


>
> Now for the registration stuff...
>
> — Section 6.2 —
>
> > IANA has added an entry to the "IETF URN Sub-namespace for
> > Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers" registry and created
> > a sub-namespace for the Registered Parameter Identifier as per
> > [RFC3553]: "urn:ietf:params:whip".
>
> IANA has not done that yet.  It should say “IANA is asked to add an entry…
> and
> create… .”  The RFC Editor will change the text once that’s been done, but
> getting it right helps with the bookkeeping.
>
> > To manage this sub-namespace, IANA has created the "WebRTC-HTTP
> > ingestion protocol (WHIP) URIs" registry, which is used to
> > manage entries within the "urn:ietf:params:whip" namespace.
>
> Similarly here, “IANA is asked to create… which will be used… .”


Done:
https://github.com/wish-wg/webrtc-http-ingest-protocol/commit/1632ac8ef975f1773a142db009105891f06b37cf


>   Also, IANA
> will ask you about the BCP 26 policy for registrations here.  The later
> text
> seems to indicate that the policy should either be listed as “Specification
> Required” with an indication that the specification MUST be an RFC (but
> see the
> discussion of 6.4.1 below), or as “RFC Required AND Expert Review”.  The
> latter
> is probably better, I think.  Or maybe it's *just* "Specification
> Required",
> and the type of specification is at the judgment of the designated expert
> based
> on information given here.  In any case, that should be clearly specified
> in
> 6.2.
>

I think that the "Specification required" is the one that we want as per
BCP 26:

   For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a
   designated expert (see Section 5
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html#section-5>) is required,
and the values and
   their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily
   available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
   interoperability between independent implementations is possible.


Added it here:
https://github.com/wish-wg/webrtc-http-ingest-protocol/commit/9ebd4ec6e1d02086ecc49bd688e0ac0165c1fe83


>
> > * Registry name: WHIP
>
> Well, but above you say that the name is "WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol
> (WHIP)
> URIs”.  This needs to be consistent, so IANA (as well as other readers)
> doesn’t
> think you’re talking about two different registries here (and there's more
> of
> this below).
>
> Done:
https://github.com/wish-wg/webrtc-http-ingest-protocol/commit/b6418c53665422855ee686bf0f3f6e3aa9f375a1


> — Section 6.3 —
>
> > This section creates and registers an IETF URN Sub-namespace for
> > use in the WHIP specifications and future extensions.
>
> I don’t understand: the first paragraph of 6.2 did that.  It seems to me
> that
> this defines the *management* of that sub-namespace, no?
>

I copied the text from the SCIM RFC:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7643.html#section-10.1

If I understood the IANA process, the section 6.1 just notes that IANA is
asked to  create and register a subspace, and provides the template
required in rfc3553 for doing so, pointing to section 6.2 as the Repository
for the subspace.
The section 6.2 is the actual section that creates the subspace.


>
> — Section 6.4.1 —


 Will send a different email for discussing 6.4.1

— Section 6.4.2 —
>
> > Description: A short phrase describing the function of the extension
>
> I suspect “short phrase” is not adequate, and we’ll just wind up with a
> repetition of the “Name”, as perhaps, “Name: Farble bender; Description:
> Bends
> the farble”.  I would say, “A brief description of the function of the
> extension, in a short paragraph or two.”

Done:
https://github.com/wish-wg/webrtc-http-ingest-protocol/commit/efb80c23d4231f2aeb3762aa4b057b7210a51e02

I think the changes above address your initial review, but please let me
know if you feel there should be any further changes required.

Best regards
Sergio