Subject: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:27:39 -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           : Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP
        Authors         : Colin Perkins
                          Magnus Westerlund
                          Joerg Ott
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25.txt
	Pages           : 45
	Date            : 2015-06-12

Abstract:
   The Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) framework provides support
   for direct interactive rich communication using audio, video, text,
   collaboration, games, etc. between two peers' web-browsers.  This
   memo describes the media transport aspects of the WebRTC framework.
   It specifies how the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used in
   the WebRTC context, and gives requirements for which RTP features,
   profiles, and extensions need to be supported.

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

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25

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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:31:28 +0200

WG,

This is the update that resulted from the comments from the IESG members 
and the Security Directorate review.

Most worth noting are the move of four references into normative 
classification, this is the Overview, the W3C API specifications and 
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies.

What is worth noting is that the last is a downref and thus I expect 
that there will be a new IETF last call to check that people are fine 
with that before it can be formally approved by the AD. The IESG 
positions are already in place to approve the document.

But, please check the changes:

Cheers

Magnus

[email-masked] skrev den 2015-06-12 13:27:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

-- 

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: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:33:47 -0700

Hi Magnus,

On Jun 12, 2015, at 4:31 AM, Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> wrote:

> WG,
> 
> This is the update that resulted from the comments from the IESG members and the Security Directorate review.
> 
> Most worth noting are the move of four references into normative classification, this is the Overview, the W3C API specifications and draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies.
> 
> What is worth noting is that the last is a downref and thus I expect that there will be a new IETF last call to check that people are fine with that before it can be formally approved by the AD. The IESG positions are already in place to approve the document.

Because the suggestion to make draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update was in a comment from Barry that you didn’t seem to agree with, I was not expecting it to change from informative to normative. I don’t particularly agree with the comment either, because it creates exactly the situation we’re in now — since many terminology documents are not standards track documents, requiring terminology documents to be normative references just bloats the downref registry and adds a bunch of unnecessary process delays without realistically impacting interoperability. So I would prefer if draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update remains an informative reference, which is a change we can make in an RFC Editor note. The document was approved by the IESG with the reference as such.

Let me know if you are anyone else has a problem with that. I will still wait a week before approving so the WG can review all the other changes.

Thanks,
Alissa

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:28:54 +0200

Alissa Cooper skrev den 2015-06-12 22:33:
> Because the suggestion to make
> draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update was in a comment from Barry
> that you didn’t seem to agree with, I was not expecting it to change
> from informative to normative. I don’t particularly agree with the
> comment either, because it creates exactly the situation we’re in now
> — since many terminology documents are not standards track documents,
> requiring terminology documents to be normative references just
> bloats the downref registry and adds a bunch of unnecessary process
> delays without realistically impacting interoperability. So I would
> prefer if draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update remains an
> informative reference, which is a change we can make in an RFC Editor
> note. The document was approved by the IESG with the reference as
> such.

Ok, I have no issues with it remaining informative reference. I think 
the rtp-topologies-update will be end up on the downref list anyway 
eventually, but we can wait until it is actually an RFC ;-).

rtp-topologies-update is a grey zone document even by my standards. But, 
I have no strong opinions here.

>
> Let me know if you are anyone else has a problem with that. I will
> still wait a week before approving so the WG can review all the other
> changes.
>

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund