Subject: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-24: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 03:47:40 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-24: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well written -- thanks!
I just have a small comment:

   This document uses the terminology from
   [I-D.ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy] and
   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview].

I'm not making this a DISCUSS, but I think that definitions of
terminology that are necessary for the understanding of the document need
to be normative references.  I think that makes those two references
normative, not informative.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:58:24 +0200

Hi Barry,

> normative, not informative.

I am changing the rtp-grouping-taxonomy to a normative reference. See 
discussion with Ben. This of course will result in the need for a new 
IETF last call for the downref. But, that is probably good, as also the 
WG needs time to digest the many small changes.

However, my personal view is that IETF need to be able to reference 
concept and basic definitions from informational documents without 
making it normative references. Otherwise we will have a lot of things 
in the downref registry and not be able to find when we end up in actual 
real issues with protocol mechanisms and their source and maturity. That 
is why I intended to leave draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview as an 
informational reference.

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: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:07:35 +0100

> However, my personal view is that IETF need to be able to reference concept
> and basic definitions from informational documents without making it
> normative references. Otherwise we will have a lot of things in the downref
> registry and not be able to find when we end up in actual real issues with
> protocol mechanisms and their source and maturity. That is why I intended to
> leave draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview as an informational reference.

Well, I think normative references are all those that you *need* in
order to understand the document.  If you don't read rtcweb-overview
and understand the terminology in it... would you be able to properly
understand this document?

That said, I'll leave it to your judgment here, and won't argue the
point further.

[And as a side point, I'm working with some other folks on an update
to BCP 97.  The update would *not* require that these sorts of
documents go into the downref registry, but would instead give
judgment to the IESG on the right way to handle this while making sure
that normative references were sufficiently mature.  Because I agree
that the downref registry was never *meant* for documents that are
only used for terminology.]

Barry

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:40:14 +0200

> understand this document?

So the overview is the entry point into the whole set of RTCWEB WG 
documents. It gives high level understanding of the relation of all the 
components. The RTP usage I think only one real include, which is the 
definition of WebRTC endpoint.

> That said, I'll leave it to your judgment here, and won't argue the

I will change this to a normative reference, mostly because I have a 
faulty memory and overview is actually targeted to become an 
applicability statement, i.e. standards track. Thus, this whole circus 
around downrefs don't apply.

 From my point of view the overview is important, but it is only this 
definition you truly need to understand to implement correctly the RTP 
stack. However, you clearly need to understand where the piece fits.

> only used for terminology.]

I think that is mostly good. But, we clearly have had a shift in 
interpretation of what a normative reference is from when I started 
being on the IESG 2006 (When the IESG statement was written) and now.

I hope this means that also the expectations are a bit more explicitly 
written up on what an normative reference is. Thus avoiding discussions 
due to shifts in interpretation.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund