Subject: [rtcweb] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtcweb-01-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 02:47:21 -0800

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-rtcweb-01-02: 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.)

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

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

What is the plan with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp/
should that also be included to be updated by this WG?

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 07:31:50 -0800

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:47 AM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> What is the plan with
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp/

It's discussed in the charter (version -01-02) and is listed as a proposed
milestone.

-MSK

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:40:51 +0000

> It's discussed in the charter (version -01-02) and is listed as a proposed

Okay, so I missed the end of the single sentence where it was mentioned:

The working group will produce updates to those two documents, and update
draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp accordingly.

I would note that this do make me ask about the intention here. So draft-ietf-
rtcweb-sdp is currently an Approved AD sponsored document. So what does it mean
to "update accordingly" here. Is the intention to retract the apprval and send
the document to this WG for update, or to publish the current and then replace
it? I don't think doing an late stage text changes even to an informal document
is particular good here. So I hope you intended to give the WG formal ownership
of the change and then have to run through the normal publication process for
this updated document? 

From my perspective I do think you need to be a bit more verbose about this
document and that the WG is chartered to take on this draft (again) or that they
should do an update. 

Cheers

Magnus

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 19:51:53 +0000

Hi,

In my opinion it makes no sense to publish it now, and then replace it. The draft is not part of C238, so there is no reason to "hurry". I think it should first be updated (based on the outcome of the JSEP/BUNDLE misalignment issue), and then published.

I also think it would be good if the changes are done and overseen by the WG, rather than last-minute "AUTH48 changes".

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
Sent: keskiviikko 3. helmikuuta 2021 18.41
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtcweb-01-02: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, 2021-02-03 at 07:31 -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> It's discussed in the charter (version -01-02) and is listed as a 
> proposed milestone.
> 

The working group will produce updates to those two documents, and update draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp accordingly.

I would note that this do make me ask about the intention here. So draft-ietf- rtcweb-sdp is currently an Approved AD sponsored document. So what does it mean to "update accordingly" here. Is the intention to retract the apprval and send the document to this WG for update, or to publish the current and then replace it? I don't think doing an late stage text changes even to an informal document is particular good here. So I hope you intended to give the WG formal ownership of the change and then have to run through the normal publication process for this updated document? 

From my perspective I do think you need to be a bit more verbose about this document and that the WG is chartered to take on this draft (again) or that they should do an update. 

Cheers

Magnus

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 17:52:46 -0800

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 8:40 AM Magnus Westerlund <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> rtcweb-sdp is currently an Approved AD sponsored document.

After you pointed out that it would probably need to be updated, it was
returned to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup, with plans for this WG to update
it after it resolves the JSEP/BUNDLE question.  And then I added it to the
charter with a corresponding milestone.

So what does it mean
> it?

Approval has already been retracted, and the plan (given the text you cited
and the milestone) is to return it to the WG to be updated before it's
published, taking into account however the WG decides to resolve the
question being put to it.

I don't think doing an late stage text changes even to an informal document
> of the change and then have to run through the normal publication process

Correct.

> document and that the WG is chartered to take on this draft (again) or

Sure, I can do that.

-MSK