Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC: draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:35:16 +0100

Hi,

I have reviewed the overview document and have the following comments:

1. Section 1:

    As the available bandwidth has increased, and as processors an other
    hardware has become ever faster, the barriers to participation have
    decreased, and it has become possible to deliver a satisfactory
    experience on commonly available computing hardware.

"processors an other" i guess it should say "and"

2. Section 2.2:

    o  A Javascript API specification, done in the W3C
       [W3C.WD-webrtc-20120209][W3C.WD-mediacapture-streams-20120628]

"A"? Shouldn't this say a "A set of Javascript API specifications, ..." 
as there are multiple APIs? I know such reformulation would impact the 
next couple of paragraphs at least. But, maybe some other way of 
acknowledging the fact that there are multiple API parts?

3. Section 2.2:

"and the Javascript API defined above."

I see a issue with pointing to the specific API specs above. This as if 
there are other API relatizations defined, even if compatible they are 
not considered WebRTC Browser. I would suggest, simply drop "defined 
above".

4. On the completeness of the specification

Looking at the current set of RTCWeb WG documents, one sees that there 
are some that are not referenced:

draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-04
draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04 	
draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-02

The above are referenced by mentioned documents

draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp-02

Is not referenced by any document currently. Thus the question is if one 
needs to include a reference in some suitable place for this document, 
or if it is fine as a stand alone one. Considering that it is an 
informational explanation document, it may not need to be included, but 
I have to raise the question if it should be included at least as an 
informational reference in Overview, or somewhere else?

Conclusion: I think this document is ready for publication request when 
the above issues has been considered.

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: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 16:31:58 +0100

Thank you for the review!

> acknowledging the fact that there are multiple API parts?

Actually both the IETF effort and the W3C effort consists of lots of
moving parts. Would "A Javascript API, defined by a set of
specifications [cite]" scan better?

> not considered WebRTC Browser. I would suggest, simply drop "defined

Right, that's what I intended to say, and what I think the WG wanted.
Unless we can point to a specific API, there's no way to differentiate
between a WebRTC browser and a WebRTC non-browser.

For a currently interesting example - Edge implements the ORTC API,
which they believe is implementing the WebRTC protocols, and offering an
API to them. But it is not the WebRTC API.

So at the moment, I'd want to claim that Edge is a WebRTC non-browser.
Edge with the 1.0 shim would be a WebRTC browser - and when  Edge
implements the WebRTC 1.0 natively, Edge would turn into a WebRTC browser.

There are also lots of devices using a C++ API to WebRTC-implementing
libraries. These cannot make the API security guarantees that the
rtcweb-security drafts depend on for their design. So I consider it
appropriate to classify them as WebRTC non-browsers, too.

If this isn't the consensus of the group, we can change it. But it is
what I intended to write.

> draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-02

All of these are indirectly referenced. ALPN is referenced by
-transport-, and FEC is referenced by -rtp-usage. ip-handling is
referenced by -jsep-.

Is it necessary to reference them directly? If so, where would you
suggest that the overview needs text that references them?

> The above are referenced by mentioned documents

That document is only examples. I'm happy to have it only indirectly
referenced.

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