Subject: [rtcweb] Dependencies on drafts in our documents

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:30:33 +0200

Greetings,

department of small hacks: As part of updating the -overview document, I 
wrote a small dependency graph extractor, to see what we are looking at 
in terms of getting things done.

Here's what I came up with as direct and indirect *normative* 
dependencies for -overview (with all the normal caveats for text 
processing utilities invented from scratch in an afternoon):

draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation
draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp
draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel
draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps
draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol
draft-muthu-behave-consent-freshness
draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri
draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-trickle
draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps

There's also these links that don't reference any current draft:

Missing file: draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-trickle-00 in 
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-03.txt
Missing file: draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-01 in 
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-04.txt
Missing file: draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-01 in 
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-06.txt

Now - apart from those drafts - do the chairs or the participants know 
of OTHER drafts that should be referenced, directly or indirectly, from 
the -overview draft?

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:58:04 +0000

I assume implementation of the unified decision into the drafts will produce a whole set of other dependencies.

The best view of that at the moment is Adam's slides in the second RFCWEB session in Berlin.

I guess it depends whether you want the situation at the moment, or something to plan the work going forward, as to whether you include those or not.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: 14 August 2013 12:31
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [rtcweb] Dependencies on drafts in our documents
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:12:59 +0200

> I guess it depends whether you want the situation at the moment, or something to plan the work going forward, as to whether you include those or not.
I'm looking to help the chairs and the WG figure out what we need to 
finish in order to be finished.
Obviously, if there's normative references that shouldn't be, that needs 
fixing too.

The nice thing about having this thing scripted is that it's easy to 
update the list - I added -unified-plan,
and re-rean the script.

That also led me to locating a bug, so here's the updated list:

draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis
draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-multi-stream-optimisation
draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-encrypted-header-ext
draft-ietf-avtext-multiple-clock-rates
draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation
draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel
draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview
draft-ietf-rtcweb-qos
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately
draft-jennings-mmusic-media-req
draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol
draft-muthu-behave-consent-freshness
draft-nandakumar-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes
draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri
draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-trickle
draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan
draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctp-ndata
draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps
draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-simulcast
draft-westerlund-avtcore-transport-multiplexing

Missing file: draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-01 in 
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-04.txt
Missing file: draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-trickle-00 in 
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-03.txt
Missing file: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-04 in 
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-07.txt
Missing file: draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-01 in 
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-06.txt
Missing file: draft-ietf-rtcweb-qos-00 in 
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-05.txt
Missing file: draft-westerlund-avtcore-rtp-simulcast-02 in 
internet-drafts/draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00.txt

(the "missing file" code is obviously not completely sensible)

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:51:27 +0200

Harald,

I think you are missing:

draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-03

/Magnus

On 2013-08-14 14:12, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> I assume implementation of the unified decision into the drafts will
>> produce a whole set of other dependencies.
>>
>> I guess it depends whether you want the situation at the moment, or
>> something to plan the work going forward, as to whether you include
>> those or not.

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:20:41 +0200

> draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-media-rtp-session-03

Hmm.... this SHOULD have been picked up from 
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage, where it is listed.
Another bug fixed. Thanks.
(didn't seem to add any more new drafts, though)

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:51:12 +0100

On 14 August 2013 14:20, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...

I didn't see draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris either.

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:04:42 -0700

> I didn't see draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris either.

Which BTW is in IETF LC and whose publication is being challenged[1] (together
with draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri).  It would be good to hear from people
who wants to see this work published.

Thanks.

[1]
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=71426&tid=1376489856
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=71427&tid=1376489856
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=71434&tid=1376489856

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:41:45 +0200

> I didn't see draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris either.
That's a good catch. The URI is used by the Javascript API, but my 
dependency script doesn't follow links into W3C space.

Do we have any IETF draft that should really reference this draft?

      Harald

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 02:16:25 +0000

On Aug 14, 2013, at 19:30, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Now - apart from those drafts - do the chairs or the participants know of OTHER drafts that should be referenced, directly or indirectly, from the -overview draft?

I'd have expected draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers to be discussed somewhere (appendix A?); similarly draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements as a heads-up for an eventual future mandatory mechanism out of RMCAT.

Lars

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:54:39 +0200

> I'd have expected draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers to be discussed somewhere (appendix A?); similarly draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements as a heads-up for an eventual future mandatory mechanis…
Circuit-breakers are referenced from rtp-usage, so that's covered. 
(missing from my first list because of a bug, included in the second).

rmcat-requirements needs to be an informative reference, so wouldn't 
show up on this scan, but I think it needs to be referenced somewhere. 
rtp-usage or -overview?

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:12:08 +0000

> Do we have any IETF draft that should really reference this draft?

The W3C draft has a normative reference to it

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:20:16 +0000

Should use-cases be on the list ?

Seems like MSID should be on the list 

Payload for OPUS ?

> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview
that should be the transport version of the qos draft 

> draft-jennings-mmusic-media-req
I think this wen to audio and video so perhaps it can go 

> draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol

Seems a bunch of below should have moved to WG drafts at this point 

> draft-westerlund-avtcore-transport-multiplexing

Perhaps overview should say the w3c spec depends on constraints-regitry and the TURN / STUN URI to so we get them.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:38:00 -0700

draft-ietf-payload-opus should be on the list because it is a normative dependency of draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio. 
 
See the link below for other reference issues which should be cleaned up in the drafts and in the dependency list:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg08622.html