Subject: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-constraints-registry-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 06:42:12 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : IANA Registry for RTCWeb Constrainable Properties
        Author          : Daniel C. Burnett
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rtcweb-constraints-registry-02.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2015-03-09

Abstract:
   Specifications in W3C's Media Capture Task Force and WebRTC Working
   Group have need of a registry in which to maintain a list of
   constrainable properties for HTML media and other constrainable
   objects.  This document defines this registry.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-constraints-registry/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-constraints-registry-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-constraints-registry-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:54:00 +0100

Hi,

I had a quick review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-constraints-registry-02. So
some few comments.

1. Shouldn't the name of the registry be "WebRTC Constrainable
Properties"? My understanding was that we are using WebRTC rather than
RTCWeb as the name for the overarching thing.

2. Is there a good reason why not a outer limit on the property name
can't be set, even if it is large. Would not for example 256 characters
be sufficient?

3. I find no requirements on the reference. Should there be guidance on
this to the expert reviewer. For example are references that are secret
and can't even be given to the expert reviewer allowed? Are references
under a pay-wall okay, as long as the reference is provided the expert
reviewer? I think the expectation should be made clear. I think their
are good points to allow almost anyone to register, however we might
want to make clear the expectancy that the expert reviewer is provided
with one copy, possibly under NDA if really required.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:22:40 -0400

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 6:54 AM, Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

I agree

> can't be set, even if it is large. Would not for example 256 characters

not sure it will matter much but seems like a fine change. These names only really occur in JS code and specs - they won't show in in SDP.  

> with one copy, possibly under NDA if really required.

Excellent point but seems like something best handled in draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis to update the "Specification Required" text. Given part of the job of the expert is to catch duplicates,  I think that things have to be available to expert, and all future experts, and all people that want to review the experts decision including any IETF participant but this is seems like a very controversial topic that should be solved IETF wide and not juste here. 

> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:23:29 +1100

Hello
> Excellent point but seems like something best handled in draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis to update the "Specification Required" text. Given part of the job of the expert is to catch duplicates,  I…
[CNG] Another approach would be to define a namespace for private 
registrations where there's less scrutiny and keep the job of the expert 
to review publicly available documents. Its the approach that was taken 
for megaco [RFC5615] and I think has worked fairly well.

Christian