From nobody Thu Mar 3 12:12:18 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietf.org Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BE13A0EE1; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:12:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rtcweb@ietf.org Message-ID: <164633833168.28316.9472709064370589358@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 12:12:11 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 20:12:12 -0000 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 WG of the IETF. Title : JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol (JSEP) Authors : Justin Uberti Cullen Jennings Eric Rescorla Filename : draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.txt Pages : 106 Date : 2022-03-03 Abstract: This document describes the mechanisms for allowing a JavaScript application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API and discusses how this relates to existing signaling protocols. This specification obsoletes RFC 8829. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts From nobody Fri Mar 4 07:24:47 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D164C3A144B for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 07:24:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vdcJ5-8_i0tc for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 07:24:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7885F3A0BCA for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 07:24:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id a1so7582927qta.13 for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 07:24:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=vHNY/5Y9Py7kzD/fvrds37J8/1RCeN0MflPk92BQTzw=; b=OsW2kPrQn6HRS3XHCh78uE98pZcW89HskJbn6JlwTLO0AhJ1CA7+GsrQyF3xEL0FkT AXlyg95zSzjbqviiULDSBOO2c0rVbQJqmNOzWWRrNWFOUAICIDG0RFbNo2v/Yf4L2a79 nRkPqZZAk3T6D3kqVee2ZJ068TbxUfQIAHkcU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=vHNY/5Y9Py7kzD/fvrds37J8/1RCeN0MflPk92BQTzw=; b=xyColggjtEWJDvJUWl+2SHIn7OS963UnDYcsvrFp6MHB6qfyEwOfZ5m3j35NTEjZqw 5OmVQcM+hm4ouYPwWKvJGOgCCj1uKZ8uqt8KR/FmxB6TaljVYhoiiF3Wt1vrTRnbvB7w 2RYroqXneHtjn0Vx2hFKqjLsNRXg51yLpYD5Tgn+UbDFUac3ibraSaxMDREtArhYwtqT s/Byo/0ZCBMqWgWdI3HbUQBPscM1Nh+0YG63t5K7C+3yTKqdg6XaC+s8+XEXEryB9lmQ P6iwL7g2K9QtmdGgQZUxhlvveQfrENXFZ4L7G9iY/f3brlTzL5445YplACZcwMlLlwqw flxw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533S8pTtXfp+qTPkveqNr6qGHP7+TA515ShBsfWvXEsivsv4gkUJ OsX7IO0BKOhtSPkzrpVPzOOhsmONg7FKqQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzbt3j8CqY866pp5pKpZ/HnvLulTTfb3Jjzh6KlIFjsFqxYzq8PTtXT6wjHvy5pVcbRvlHhCg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:73c6:0:b0:2d8:2b2f:a1d5 with SMTP id v6-20020ac873c6000000b002d82b2fa1d5mr32748181qtp.386.1646407479318; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 07:24:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-71-178-177-131.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.178.177.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o19-20020a05620a22d300b0046d7f2a6841sm2578515qki.74.2022.03.04.07.24.38 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Mar 2022 07:24:38 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 10:24:38 -0500 References: <164633833168.28316.9472709064370589358@ietfa.amsl.com> To: RTCWeb IETF In-Reply-To: <164633833168.28316.9472709064370589358@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 15:24:46 -0000 Hi! I am working on the Shepherd write-up now. Will be requesting = Publication once completed. spt > On Mar 3, 2022, at 15:12, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > 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 WG of the IETF. >=20 > Title : JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol = (JSEP) > Authors : Justin Uberti > Cullen Jennings > Eric Rescorla > Filename : draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.txt > Pages : 106 > Date : 2022-03-03 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes the mechanisms for allowing a JavaScript > application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session > via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API and > discusses how this relates to existing signaling protocols. >=20 > This specification obsoletes RFC 8829. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis/ >=20 > There is also an HTML version available at: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.html >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at = rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From nobody Wed Mar 9 07:33:47 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietf.org Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816C03A0A85; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 07:33:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Sean Turner via Datatracker To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, sean@sn3rd.com Message-ID: <164684002549.27871.11197769273583569423@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:33:45 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [rtcweb] Publication has been requested for draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:33:46 -0000 Sean Turner has requested publication of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the RTCWEB working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis/ From nobody Wed Mar 9 07:34:05 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86F33A0C4B for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 07:33:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WgqbEQNI9gba for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 07:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87DCC3A0C49 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 07:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id v13so1516043qkv.3 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:33:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=j42tCZGgxs0UxPnraSq3VTxuH+YJB3MWwjk8tjpU1n8=; b=j6Me+wSt6FcT8F2CxZCViS47wq8EOn0BP/Sl3P2vMxY5IJM9c2+a09XDut6avZfkot 03yMVOMyiErRwDQI6Va2eP9O2qgeDQi7tmSh4mlPqKMXp0S7U2PDp2GJwcA+J8/T7vqD ZaVjGe8AqYfNzFC1/wvRTXauGRH/3sv8eWIrE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=j42tCZGgxs0UxPnraSq3VTxuH+YJB3MWwjk8tjpU1n8=; b=MmWmCnfMjzROD4h0PzmarnfQP4lb00XHFDdB5Mb0YlUajLEo4AbVqk6hkGPcCFDrUk 2KX395ncw0c9NHnLNFr3AduCE+w/qF0KH72wc/2z+iH/QrEWEGn0Zt5UCHbcAYn7b9I1 EmpPeIfXKEPMxo/gTCdWP/5+qCjKlo9pLO0RaRK85eocdYiHF09QBVaD4UqaA26qhusJ iYp3TguKgTkqKsp17pEjv5ASx/bctmPVAlus6rHu6otIgyK3Pz/olmzY6HiZGzUb3ohi F5uz3k2O4biSzMzObk6XXyCuWGHot2l6BxR+xB/QfZx+LVrHqlTJxnNn6lYowhD8liCe Iikg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325NPfpa6lqSRjq3yBeoyXZgLLaTqhYjfnOIfJSiZTjO4Dj8eMl ZMkdkJNP0g9eB74JJZew7RdfNLJ//cfJWw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFnH8YVVDcZJvNu+joTZvLCLSMNtwADnJK7Sklf3sWfVlnWuiRJuVHFTOgoPEOma/6mBEL7A== X-Received: by 2002:a37:2d07:0:b0:508:1f88:a55c with SMTP id t7-20020a372d07000000b005081f88a55cmr120615qkh.98.1646840031530; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:33:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-71-178-177-131.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.178.177.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x23-20020a05620a14b700b00648eb7f4ce5sm1040989qkj.35.2022.03.09.07.33.50 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Mar 2022 07:33:50 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:33:50 -0500 References: <164633833168.28316.9472709064370589358@ietfa.amsl.com> To: RTCWeb IETF In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:34:03 -0000 I have confirmed with the authors that they are in compliance with BCP = 78/79. The Shepherd write-up is complete and can be found here: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis/shepherdwr= iteup/ I am changing the state to "Submit the IESG=E2=80=9D to progress the I-D = further down the track. Cheers, spt > On Mar 4, 2022, at 10:24, Sean Turner wrote: >=20 > Hi! I am working on the Shepherd write-up now. Will be requesting = Publication once completed. >=20 > spt >=20 >> On Mar 3, 2022, at 15:12, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> 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 WG of the IETF. >>=20 >> Title : JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol = (JSEP) >> Authors : Justin Uberti >> Cullen Jennings >> Eric Rescorla >> Filename : draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.txt >> Pages : 106 >> Date : 2022-03-03 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> This document describes the mechanisms for allowing a JavaScript >> application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session >> via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API and >> discusses how this relates to existing signaling protocols. >>=20 >> This specification obsoletes RFC 8829. >>=20 >>=20 >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis/ >>=20 >> There is also an HTML version available at: >> = https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02.html >>=20 >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 >>=20 >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at = rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >=20 From nobody Mon Mar 14 21:12:35 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D793A1834 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 21:12:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id scP19ipCNQor for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 21:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua1-x931.google.com (mail-ua1-x931.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::931]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C3753A1831 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 21:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua1-x931.google.com with SMTP id z10so7497737uaa.3 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 21:12:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=sCyzjDT2YK9FO8lt2dMxRg2hNEkp9o8TC6brFloDFdQ=; b=WdFfyqY06WL9yIOEDUzmVkjcxthcAqYE8MFA6t7NLibL/H1sZnRZrO977XClzajxUs rGINfJSPA9+iZW6YsMkC/MAW7tVuouNmsNRN3TWXu/+3ic4re0KxRYVVXHhROyu+xOqO YjH4P6KOjRkOuaHZo+k8NIFXYxNk/Cu9jcPayKPO5CDj0d+9BJZo1yZfcifOsGIthR5V jLO06N4tl6iUom7xlyzKlNSgATf6phjAl0rjzMttZ0GvSBhBjsc9iVtVbrQLLIJ3UN6/ lx2n3idLOordenDOjDFlYqmWH8YQPgmodQ1vTqFTNosNfHLOj/mgeqa+FtAOyrA4iDex LNjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=sCyzjDT2YK9FO8lt2dMxRg2hNEkp9o8TC6brFloDFdQ=; b=vljgfDN7K9Wzfo9pqLguQIGSs15/skWK3bUi4urHfsJDyz9ezDHPvZUWSl3WecwF1e XKm6zwf3YknZuUuMjK+0XOPTwk2p3Ja3r++ZhOZqgTRzu79k8cBuqujO3lPcunbq3+au NAr5NGBTJhJJhZKSbs6y4xgw7KYFT2UZYzm2ZnHo5dNaJDOOqLvm/FJI4fAXq9+iBVWk sfzqtXEw3pNKkebv9qUjocUzUnHNQiAYlkY/WzKUsmiwOEq7Qbu1fO/4CRJBCX5yKwuE bbefPZNu3jBN3I1PWbGK5IMlF06v3l02mPOnT0lng2Jh673UyjhzkGETphQPhMUKHlXS MS8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533MBx8SgOV+LJkVVfL7gkNWKOWhrm3oKWvwEFejpkjygsZkHNk7 clC5xjnU5uVJ0fJ+epRsffVvBAfGHuyFEVWg9ljcCvema0I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8mBASRlUOIrrurI5Y+RwHb8h6amWgAZE17/4KOFVCCTWUi5GZ0UcqAxVCMgrdPWKIjripa4gCDKZ30nrhG48= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6192:0:b0:34a:1607:b2fd with SMTP id h18-20020ab06192000000b0034a1607b2fdmr10069059uan.65.1647317549442; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 21:12:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 21:12:18 -0700 Message-ID: To: RTCWeb IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005deb2705da3a01c2" Archived-At: Subject: [rtcweb] AD Evaluation of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 04:12:33 -0000 --0000000000005deb2705da3a01c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, thanks for getting this moving. I'm just looking at the diff between this and RFC 8829 for this review. There's only one small thing, so I'm also going to request Last Call now, and we can resolve these points along with any other Last Call feedback you get. Section 1.3 says: When [RFC8829 ] was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE [RFC9143 ] operation were identified with regard to both the specification text as well as implementation behavior. The former concern was addressed via an update to [RFC9143 ]. For the latter concern, it was observed that some implementations implemented the "max-bundle" bundle policy defined in [RFC8829 ] by assuming that bundling had already been negotiated, rather than marking "m=" sections as bundle-only as indicated by the specification. In order to prevent unexpected changes to applications relying on the pre- standard behavior, the decision was made to deprecate "max-bundle" and instead introduce an identically defined "must-bundle" policy that, when selected, provides the behavior originally specified by [RFC8829 ]. But RFC 9143 was the update, it's not the thing being updated. So I think that second sentence needs to change to something like: "The former concern was addressed in RFC 9143, which obsoleted RFC 8843." -MSK --0000000000005deb2705da3a01c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, thanks for getting this moving.=C2=A0 I'm jus= t looking at the diff between this and RFC 8829 for this review.=C2=A0 Ther= e's only one small thing, so I'm also going to request Last Call no= w, and we can resolve these points along with any other Last Call feedback = you get.

Section 1.3 says:

   When [RFC8829] was published, inconsistencies regardin=
g BUNDLE
   [RFC9143] operation were identified with regard to both the
   specification text as well as implementation behavior.  The former
   concern was addressed via an update to [RFC9143].  For the lat=
ter
   concern, it was observed that some implementations implemented the
   "max-bundle" bundle policy defined in [RFC8829] by assuming that
   bundling had already been negotiated, rather than marking "m=3D&quo=
t;
   sections as bundle-only as indicated by the specification.  In order
   to prevent unexpected changes to applications relying on the pre-
   standard behavior, the decision was made to deprecate "max-bundle&q=
uot;
   and instead introduce an identically defined "must-bundle" pol=
icy
   that, when selected, provides the behavior originally specified by
   [RFC8829].
But RFC 9143 was the update, it's not the thing being upda= ted.=C2=A0 So I think that second sentence needs to change to something lik= e:

"The former concern was addressed in RFC 9143, wh= ich obsoleted RFC 8843."

-MSK
<= br>
--0000000000005deb2705da3a01c2-- From nobody Tue Mar 15 09:23:46 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietf.org Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BA13A09B5; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk CC: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, sean@sn3rd.com, superuser@gmail.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <164736142471.7989.18001343016215739681@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:23:44 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [rtcweb] Last Call: (JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol (JSEP)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:23:45 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document: - 'JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol (JSEP)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-04-05. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes the mechanisms for allowing a JavaScript application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API and discusses how this relates to existing signaling protocols. This specification obsoletes RFC 8829. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Tue Mar 15 12:01:49 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154FB3A1888 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:01:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=alphaexplorationco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iIgPqPR2JIYV for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot1-x336.google.com (mail-ot1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 883FD3A18F2 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x336.google.com with SMTP id w17-20020a056830111100b005b22c584b93so14584206otq.11 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:01:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alphaexplorationco.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZugpU6tiCeeLGc3Nksr/ssmn5UXZ/cnYVeBmNa2ZE20=; b=A/N+79QZVPDYklixXzkM2oXrdqLlQ6gzsxWt4NB/FFlIFUGAeSEPqS6mPqmQl3lmM+ DWBv58T+/lCPjCHFVZ5SHVCOTwzvmv2DNUCVbZ5Au0MV3ADkgOgRjSYTVoQ5cxIX7Zz7 Aqk362aRnAWK4LeLNldxRHGoEMH0lKEXVULdRS5c8hgz+5icZLgbs/X06Zz5Y8/Klv1W vj/mtWZvQiHDL3eVKnhL3iMn/8eYx8CZs6+64tdgzIKBi6KF+AKIZ1Szd/am659JZ29Z SM/CrfNdchDRrGNFzvx8DUOiMnkxErAYX+Y5s0F7xzzmKRR2zNHJxSj1ap+SYeC8B92O XO0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZugpU6tiCeeLGc3Nksr/ssmn5UXZ/cnYVeBmNa2ZE20=; b=AWwkmZDkY23FBMiZ6g46+EoV/RR3ibSaUiJWyrSbRQU8tmwEV8/y6cKQcMD8A4jFPu w2UoTfdVXh69rGfv15P7lTTSMFHn+5NCzfX+SuSKCnfv7FDlFxVpaUtbq3K7poadPvKB uf6pq8+Iyb3hJnQR5W2I/eK9I6gXQ+7tl+ix08rarYep02efl+XCf1Lk/yFQqpC39wrw KgJ/6ED08AKw+VY2ser2dYVYKSvYOgiFxoVFwmWzmGPa/EjG9jxL/5tlfgZ/UN9gQBPP +BW5d5rnSy9sI11LYHQfNkhXUn4mPeShhv6YYhHAvBmBh5SC5gxDXU0mJ/dpE93x4C5c TQtg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531r5CBL9TRrCXMHreE15C9kklJK8bWj2eFrLuGsQFnfJTdju7te LX4MVNloPCjacpNVY6gssBf8R2ymrN8XNc2dlontIw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyK3VDSP85c0P32ABDPSLGbTLNYHVSGGjkfPOBGyOVAhulfl5KNtZsPJ0Sdi+pCANPX6eUE3grg6lWs0eD9DX8= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7687:0:b0:59e:da8c:5d32 with SMTP id j7-20020a9d7687000000b0059eda8c5d32mr12857071otl.77.1647370879251; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:01:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Justin Uberti Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:01:08 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: RTCWeb IETF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000012488305da466c8b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AD Evaluation of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 19:01:46 -0000 --00000000000012488305da466c8b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Good catch. This was probably caused by the search-and-replace we did when publishing this draft, we can fix it with any other feedback as you mentioned. On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:12 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hi, thanks for getting this moving. I'm just looking at the diff between > this and RFC 8829 for this review. There's only one small thing, so I'm > also going to request Last Call now, and we can resolve these points along > with any other Last Call feedback you get. > > Section 1.3 says: > > When [RFC8829 ] was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE > [RFC9143 ] operation were identified with regard to both the > specification text as well as implementation behavior. The former > concern was addressed via an update to [RFC9143 ]. For the latter > concern, it was observed that some implementations implemented the > "max-bundle" bundle policy defined in [RFC8829 ] by assuming that > bundling had already been negotiated, rather than marking "m=" > sections as bundle-only as indicated by the specification. In order > to prevent unexpected changes to applications relying on the pre- > standard behavior, the decision was made to deprecate "max-bundle" > and instead introduce an identically defined "must-bundle" policy > that, when selected, provides the behavior originally specified by > [RFC8829 ]. > > But RFC 9143 was the update, it's not the thing being updated. So I think > that second sentence needs to change to something like: > > "The former concern was addressed in RFC 9143, which obsoleted RFC 8843." > > -MSK > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > --00000000000012488305da466c8b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good catch. This was probably caused by the search-and-rep= lace we did when publishing this draft, we can fix it with any other feedba= ck as you mentioned.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:12 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <= ;superuser@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>
Hi, thanks for getting this moving.=C2=A0 I'm just looking at the= diff between this and RFC 8829 for this review.=C2=A0 There's only one= small thing, so I'm also going to request Last Call now, and we can re= solve these points along with any other Last Call feedback you get.

Section 1.3 says:

   Wh=
en [RFC8829] was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE
   [RFC9143] operation were identified with reg=
ard to both the
   specification text as well as implementation behavior.  The former
   concern was addressed via an update to [RFC9143<=
/a>].  For the latter
   concern, it was observed that some implementations implemented the
   "max-bundle" bundle policy defined in [RFC8829] by assuming t=
hat
   bundling had already been negotiated, rather than marking "m=3D&quo=
t;
   sections as bundle-only as indicated by the specification.  In order
   to prevent unexpected changes to applications relying on the pre-
   standard behavior, the decision was made to deprecate "max-bundle&q=
uot;
   and instead introduce an identically defined "must-bundle" pol=
icy
   that, when selected, provides the behavior originally specified by
   [RFC8829].
But RFC 9143 was the update, it's not th= e thing being updated.=C2=A0 So I think that second sentence needs to chang= e to something like:

"The former concern was address= ed in RFC 9143, which obsoleted RFC 8843."

-M= SK

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
--00000000000012488305da466c8b-- From nobody Sat Mar 19 10:30:22 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietf.org Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF5D3A16F0; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 10:30:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Yaron Sheffer via Datatracker To: Cc: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <164771101929.16613.15544485411021583131@ietfa.amsl.com> Reply-To: Yaron Sheffer Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 10:30:19 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [rtcweb] Secdir last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 17:30:20 -0000 Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer Review result: Ready This document differs from RFC 8829 in one specific area, which was in fact already anticipated by the RFC. This area of difference has to do with media session negotiation and to the best of my understanding has no bearing on protocol security. Therefore the previous SecDir review still applies, and the document is Ready. From nobody Sun Mar 27 02:03:12 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietf.org Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954443A1214; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 02:02:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Qin Wu via Datatracker To: Cc: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <164837175050.30355.18155410160847059171@ietfa.amsl.com> Reply-To: Qin Wu Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 02:02:30 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [rtcweb] Opsdir last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 09:02:31 -0000 Reviewer: Qin Wu Review result: Has Issues I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. RFC8829 defines JSEP protocol and describes the mechanisms for allowing a JavaScript application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia session via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API. This document is RFC8829bis and provides update to RFC8829 to address inconsistency between JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol. Major issue: I am not against deprecating "max-bundle" and replacing it with “must-bundle”, but Since there is inconsistency between JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol, regarding bundle-only "m=", I think it is the fault of both JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol. the best way is both JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol should make bis documents in parallel, to make sure consistently issues get resolved. The draft said: “ The former concern was addressed via an update to [RFC9143] ” Where is the document specifying update to RFC9143? Without RFC9143bis to be proposed on the same table, I am not sure how we can prevent inconsistency issue between this RFC8829bis and the future RFC9143bis from happening again. Minor issue: The draft said: “ When [RFC8829] was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE [RFC9143] operation were identified with regard to both the specification text as well as implementation behavior. ” What is the difference between specification text and implementation behavior? Why specification text can not specify the standard behavior for the endpoints implementation? RFC8829 said: “  JSEP prescribes that said "m=" sections should use port zero and add an "a=bundle-only" attribute in initial offers, but not in answers or subsequent offers.  BUNDLE prescribes that these "m=" sections should be marked as described in the previous point, but in all offers and answers.  Most current browsers do not mark any "m=" sections with port zero and instead use the same port for all bundled "m=" sections; some others follow the JSEP behavior ” If both JSEP protocol and SDP BUNDEL protocol define consistent standard behavior, browser implementation follows standard behavior defined in JSEP and SDP BUNDEL protocol, implementation inconsistency will automatically go away, no? From nobody Sun Mar 27 10:49:08 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietf.org Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA97C3A087B; Sun, 27 Mar 2022 10:49:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker To: Cc: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <164840334560.25727.8727238035250838155@ietfa.amsl.com> Reply-To: Joel Halpern Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 10:49:05 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 17:49:06 -0000 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at . Document: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2022-03-27 IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-05 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. However, there are some issues that should be considered before final approval. Major issues: None Minor issues: I found myself confused as a reader about one aspect of this document The document seems to describe both the Interface to the JSEP and the details of what the underlying system must do in response to JSEP operations. The later is described very well and clearly. The former is described quite vaguely. I suspect that the assumption is that the required parameters are described in the W3C documents. But it is hard to tell, and the only formal reference is a vague citation in the introduction to an outdated W3C specification. A little more clarity on how an implementor is supposed to know what actual interface objects, methods, and parameters they need to provide would be helpful. Also, the reference should be updated to whatever is the current W3C specification. Nits/editorial comments: From nobody Mon Mar 28 06:51:15 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F4A3A1124 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 06:51:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZdeLHsa_fc8t for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 06:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44EC53A1121 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 06:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id d142so11387483qkc.4 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 06:50:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qbKTG0akUDKzbBSvO9IXW4icVg/br0zi+Keq4Mw3AsE=; b=R3sbMcfPB8zJMsds92RNYT5XuDK5brKBklOM7471b5mBcClI32jz7oo/BLrpbtQHUK Bnd66MBFJgS++yFiEB2A6VI1XVPaExr31ZJcN0y1Af7GBPRkTJMiCxMyK1Stk7gHk1qN 6KjDeJ/ZIfS27H0SRZwkH42f6pAdg8MotQSIA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qbKTG0akUDKzbBSvO9IXW4icVg/br0zi+Keq4Mw3AsE=; b=BlX/muT1Z3efJDTS4X8WgNWxf3SmB/U78mpOTpNhH4dZIb8vI4AI9KAUMHWiGA9Ktm 1xi5YAlcAl514Q5bJX6/WvIs2QDtYbiYLHpKQMuTarnJiM9Z2cIyIaDVMxKu1jkMM3jp 41J6FAIneo6h6xZvyq0BP47854107jseww1vpx1E8QlUnVDNs+x6zY5GlLEEPFWQwmoY RVFOF3Yoo5IVhQgKFNzeTru6SBXPtV1ynowzX+LLG+UoHeIZ8+D6Re6KVoTjp3+dpTe2 b0zB6KjlLNASdGVHS71y6QV4cxUFMSySaynop8qhvX+ZC044BI5YEimbkzurOmAUe6DO UKVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vaJZDe++/rdpr5F+WdO6VBxrgQjMbco+849xr8DeWyFa1WgZD PpKfMaVIQoJieLAgF+YAYXYlznKX6JLxZg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJywyQVdJa0Yi+Rxe9UKT0Dnq1KAgZJMVfvYh7ghzOEXV3kFkBcgM9pseeCS1ylSEsOZTMxbuw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:a30a:0:b0:67b:3585:4689 with SMTP id m10-20020a37a30a000000b0067b35854689mr16303295qke.504.1648475453315; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 06:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-71-178-177-131.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.178.177.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q123-20020a378e81000000b0067eb3d6f605sm7881420qkd.0.2022.03.28.06.50.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Mar 2022 06:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: <164837175050.30355.18155410160847059171@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:50:51 -0400 Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20AA82C8-9380-417C-A3D9-AEDF11019494@sn3rd.com> References: <164837175050.30355.18155410160847059171@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Qin Wu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opsdir last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:51:01 -0000 > On Mar 27, 2022, at 05:02, Qin Wu via Datatracker = wrote: >=20 > Reviewer: Qin Wu > Review result: Has Issues >=20 > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's = ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. = These > comments were written with the intent of improving the operational = aspects of > the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be = included > in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs = should > treat these comments just like any other last call comments. >=20 > RFC8829 defines JSEP protocol and describes the mechanisms for = allowing a > JavaScript application to control the signaling plane of a multimedia = session > via the interface specified in the W3C RTCPeerConnection API. This = document is > RFC8829bis and provides update to RFC8829 to address inconsistency = between JSEP > and SDP BUNDLE protocol. >=20 > Major issue: > I am not against deprecating "max-bundle" and replacing it with = =E2=80=9Cmust-bundle=E2=80=9D, > but Since there is inconsistency between JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol, > regarding bundle-only "m=3D", I think it is the fault of both JSEP and = SDP BUNDLE > protocol. the best way is both JSEP and SDP BUNDLE protocol should = make bis > documents in parallel, to make sure consistently issues get resolved. = The draft > said: =E2=80=9C The former concern was addressed via an update to = [RFC9143] =E2=80=9D Where is > the document specifying update to RFC9143? Without RFC9143bis to be = proposed on > the same table, I am not sure how we can prevent inconsistency issue = between > this RFC8829bis and the future RFC9143bis from happening again. It=E2=80=99s possible the s1.3 explanations is not clear and we were = maybe a little overzealous with our reference updates. When RFC 8829 = (JSEP) was published, there was a contradiction regarding bundle-only = "m=3D=E2=80=9C sections between JSEP and BUNDLE (as specified in RFC = 8843). This contradiction was explained in s1.3 of RFC 8829. RFC 9143, = which updates RFC 8843) and this I-D are the =E2=80=9Cfix". Maybe this = would be clearer: When [RFC8829] was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE operation were identified with regard to both the specification text as well as implementation behavior. The former concern was addressed via an update to BUNDLE, see [RFC9143]. > Minor issue: > The draft said: > =E2=80=9C > When [RFC8829] was published, inconsistencies regarding BUNDLE = [RFC9143] > operation were identified with regard to both the specification text = as well as > implementation behavior. =E2=80=9D What is the difference between = specification text > and implementation behavior? Why specification text can not specify = the > standard behavior for the endpoints implementation? The differences were as noted in the remainder of the para. > RFC8829 said: > =E2=80=9C > =EF=81=AC JSEP prescribes that said "m=3D" sections should use = port zero and add an > "a=3Dbundle-only" attribute in initial offers, but not in answers or = subsequent > offers. =EF=81=AC BUNDLE prescribes that these "m=3D" sections = should be marked as > described in the previous point, but in all offers and answers. =EF=81=AC= Most > current browsers do not mark any "m=3D" sections with port zero and = instead use > the same port for all bundled "m=3D" sections; some others follow the = JSEP > behavior =E2=80=9D If both JSEP protocol and SDP BUNDEL protocol = define consistent > standard behavior, browser implementation follows standard behavior = defined in > JSEP and SDP BUNDEL protocol, implementation inconsistency will = automatically > go away, no? From nobody Mon Mar 28 19:47:58 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140AE3A10BA for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQ6vlwsJ4N_w for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB6E3A0E5C for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id 1so13101652qke.1 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=M967Pg6xSJcmRhABgQlNO5ZtrHZ6xxG82Nh7TvaJ55s=; b=d7y72XS5DdJh3+1IL9yYmM6NUt8kTlvedCjwr80HXqW9iTxh94Td1NVhLJNwrLn7uZ gFbPUTxGVqG7t5aK76kU2TUJi2zXZ/1GeA4rXvjJu2wp1ZC6jOBxMNF21Mgy4UX7lUPL kS5udyRT+eGy/8t965eQCskwy8pYoNja482TM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=M967Pg6xSJcmRhABgQlNO5ZtrHZ6xxG82Nh7TvaJ55s=; b=1rdfzzICXMb19jKY+0NMmisAQkI1Ql9UqkDy5hRCfWR+K2SjVsJzinHou+ZJzD/V3A CgiBJzxUSb1gMZvZPCF3rc9SSsoMrjj0pXQa1EXLKkSoItme5MxozRzNXqHqdTaImlDO 9u8wT2pmSRnHiAjV9w2DBoTwtKMFDc/PdO9jeUiKvMNSJRNHcUX8Ak+7jI5uhVuXMYkT qCHE4/FTg0EbKBfw2IGSS4Mj7tyPMOx//CvjBFByupkOOIKYrZpKfp3HWg0ATrlIjHcl ZDeNGWt388nf9I8Ayb9PkyYDlbLkjUqRf9+Z9Yv8F8ikoBTHVnbZwfRdfOc0vdjSBxI7 Ec3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532R5mzqGRNm3AZBe3RkKVtUecdF2JCU30w1evshj0vOT8MLQ+A7 lsU83oekTQRvJEDjlNtRbEHfmw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzImPlq+uNGb///VdbPfRFgzRPoTfF/Q2N+guPv8h/5R2XAP+n53LSM1bscwDMsXKW5Wa0jzQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:489:b0:67b:31cb:fbca with SMTP id 9-20020a05620a048900b0067b31cbfbcamr19296623qkr.701.1648522055788; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-71-178-177-131.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.178.177.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v12-20020a05622a130c00b002e1b3ccd9adsm14078610qtk.79.2022.03.28.19.47.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Mar 2022 19:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: <164840334560.25727.8727238035250838155@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:47:34 -0400 Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <320CCABF-5283-4B07-B637-FC03F582CA2D@sn3rd.com> References: <164840334560.25727.8727238035250838155@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Joel Halpern X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 02:47:42 -0000 > On Mar 27, 2022, at 13:49, Joel Halpern via Datatracker = wrote: >=20 > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review result: Ready with Issues >=20 > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. >=20 > For more information, please see the FAQ at >=20 > . >=20 > Document: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review Date: 2022-03-27 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-05 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >=20 > Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed = Standard.=20 > However, there are some issues that should be considered before final = approval. >=20 > Major issues: None >=20 > Minor issues: > I found myself confused as a reader about one aspect of this = document The > document seems to describe both the Interface to the JSEP and the = details > of what the underlying system must do in response to JSEP = operations. The > later is described very well and clearly. The former is described = quite > vaguely. I suspect that the assumption is that the required = parameters are > described in the W3C documents. But it is hard to tell, and the = only > formal reference is a vague citation in the introduction to an = outdated W3C > specification. A little more clarity on how an implementor is = supposed to > know what actual interface objects, methods, and parameters they = need to > provide would be helpful. Also, the reference should be updated to > whatever is the current W3C specification. Will check on updating the reference. I would be floored if we = couldn=E2=80=99t point to it. The basic idea here is that the W3C WebRTC spec is API and this is the = protocol spec. > Nits/editorial comments: >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Mar 28 20:09:19 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8746E3A10F5; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 20:08:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ANGrnfQwDkIB; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 373D53A10FD; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KSDzX5BFqz1nsZP; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 20:08:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1648523320; bh=DcYab+dkIUYdYD7WMHeH5E1V8Uq/DITI0w8DL9KmtkM=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=aoMDw0Os/YWfhwWl+6uj0fT3gN4Qgyy0zRg9L9F5uNnbYhNDQgopmfyaog4ov3b+k ClWSLcmTJoeTAOsIMOen/OlxDV8KkeSt8aYTysrUiMzWfBeYFWNit8X5TqJ4DShsWS brv3B2UT0cgYeTvEOZ3p6GxlrGupIwC+6euqfivE= X-Quarantine-ID: <4UY_vdNSqjhT> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.21.218] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4KSDzW6T5qz1nsHm; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 20:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <72fa004c-cdd8-807d-1ba6-4ba2b3b15969@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 23:08:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Sean Turner Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, RTCWeb IETF References: <164840334560.25727.8727238035250838155@ietfa.amsl.com> <320CCABF-5283-4B07-B637-FC03F582CA2D@sn3rd.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: <320CCABF-5283-4B07-B637-FC03F582CA2D@sn3rd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 03:08:46 -0000 Thanks Sean. I finally concluded that was the intent. And I think technically it says so. If you could look at making that more clear early, it would probably help those readers who are not as familiar with the cited W3C API. Yours, Joel On 3/28/2022 10:47 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > > >> On Mar 27, 2022, at 13:49, Joel Halpern via Datatracker wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> . >> >> Document: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 >> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >> Review Date: 2022-03-27 >> IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-05 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. >> However, there are some issues that should be considered before final approval. >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: >> I found myself confused as a reader about one aspect of this document The >> document seems to describe both the Interface to the JSEP and the details >> of what the underlying system must do in response to JSEP operations. The >> later is described very well and clearly. The former is described quite >> vaguely. I suspect that the assumption is that the required parameters are >> described in the W3C documents. But it is hard to tell, and the only >> formal reference is a vague citation in the introduction to an outdated W3C >> specification. A little more clarity on how an implementor is supposed to >> know what actual interface objects, methods, and parameters they need to >> provide would be helpful. Also, the reference should be updated to >> whatever is the current W3C specification. > > Will check on updating the reference. I would be floored if we couldn’t point to it. > > The basic idea here is that the W3C WebRTC spec is API and this is the protocol spec. > >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> >> > From nobody Tue Mar 29 04:26:45 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A953A0CA8; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 04:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.907 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PKOceKbfxuf1; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 04:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 552B53A1868; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 04:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fraeml742-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KSRyq0RZvz67VMG; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:23:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from canpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.229) by fraeml742-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:25:38 +0200 Received: from canpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.229) by canpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:25:36 +0800 Received: from canpemm500005.china.huawei.com ([7.192.104.229]) by canpemm500005.china.huawei.com ([7.192.104.229]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.021; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 19:25:36 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Sean Turner CC: "ops-dir@ietf.org" , "draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org" , "last-call@ietf.org" , "rtcweb@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Opsdir last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 Thread-Index: AdhDXsowKRaNfuClTLqUtvVUxGwmTA== Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:25:36 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.100.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opsdir last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:25:48 -0000 SGksIFNlYW46DQotLS0tLemCruS7tuWOn+S7ti0tLS0tDQrlj5Hku7bkuro6IFNlYW4gVHVybmVy IFttYWlsdG86c2VhbkBzbjNyZC5jb21dIA0K5Y+R6YCB5pe26Ze0OiAyMDIy5bm0M+aciDI45pel IDIxOjUxDQrmlLbku7bkuro6IFFpbiBXdSA8YmlsbC53dUBodWF3ZWkuY29tPg0K5oqE6YCBOiBv cHMtZGlyQGlldGYub3JnOyBkcmFmdC11YmVydGktcnRjd2ViLXJmYzg4MjliaXMuYWxsQGlldGYu b3JnOyBsYXN0LWNhbGxAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IHJ0Y3dlYkBpZXRmLm9yZw0K5Li76aKYOiBSZTogT3Bz ZGlyIGxhc3QgY2FsbCByZXZpZXcgb2YgZHJhZnQtdWJlcnRpLXJ0Y3dlYi1yZmM4ODI5YmlzLTAy DQoNCg0KDQo+IE9uIE1hciAyNywgMjAyMiwgYXQgMDU6MDIsIFFpbiBXdSB2aWEgRGF0YXRyYWNr ZXIgPG5vcmVwbHlAaWV0Zi5vcmc+IHdyb3RlOg0KPiANCj4gUmV2aWV3ZXI6IFFpbiBXdQ0KPiBS ZXZpZXcgcmVzdWx0OiBIYXMgSXNzdWVzDQo+IA0KPiBJIGhhdmUgcmV2aWV3ZWQgdGhpcyBkb2N1 bWVudCBhcyBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBPcGVyYXRpb25hbCBkaXJlY3RvcmF0ZSdzIA0KPiBvbmdvaW5n IGVmZm9ydCB0byByZXZpZXcgYWxsIElFVEYgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGJlaW5nIHByb2Nlc3NlZCBieSB0 aGUgDQo+IElFU0cuICBUaGVzZSBjb21tZW50cyB3ZXJlIHdyaXR0ZW4gd2l0aCB0aGUgaW50ZW50 IG9mIGltcHJvdmluZyB0aGUgDQo+IG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIGFzcGVjdHMgb2YgdGhlIElFVEYgZHJh ZnRzLiBDb21tZW50cyB0aGF0IGFyZSBub3QgDQo+IGFkZHJlc3NlZCBpbiBsYXN0IGNhbGwgbWF5 IGJlIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIEFEIHJldmlld3MgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBJRVNHIA0KPiByZXZpZXcuICBE b2N1bWVudCBlZGl0b3JzIGFuZCBXRyBjaGFpcnMgc2hvdWxkIHRyZWF0IHRoZXNlIGNvbW1lbnRz IGp1c3QgbGlrZSBhbnkgb3RoZXIgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGNvbW1lbnRzLg0KPiANCj4gUkZDODgyOSBk ZWZpbmVzIEpTRVAgcHJvdG9jb2wgYW5kIGRlc2NyaWJlcyB0aGUgbWVjaGFuaXNtcyBmb3IgDQo+ IGFsbG93aW5nIGEgSmF2YVNjcmlwdCBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbiB0byBjb250cm9sIHRoZSBzaWduYWxp bmcgcGxhbmUgb2YgYSANCj4gbXVsdGltZWRpYSBzZXNzaW9uIHZpYSB0aGUgaW50ZXJmYWNlIHNw ZWNpZmllZCBpbiB0aGUgVzNDIA0KPiBSVENQZWVyQ29ubmVjdGlvbiBBUEkuIFRoaXMgZG9jdW1l bnQgaXMgUkZDODgyOWJpcyBhbmQgcHJvdmlkZXMgdXBkYXRlIA0KPiB0byBSRkM4ODI5IHRvIGFk ZHJlc3MgaW5jb25zaXN0ZW5jeSBiZXR3ZWVuIEpTRVAgYW5kIFNEUCBCVU5ETEUgcHJvdG9jb2wu DQo+IA0KPiBNYWpvciBpc3N1ZToNCj4gSSBhbSBub3QgYWdhaW5zdCBkZXByZWNhdGluZyAibWF4 LWJ1bmRsZSIgYW5kIHJlcGxhY2luZyBpdCB3aXRoIA0KPiDigJxtdXN0LWJ1bmRsZeKAnSwgYnV0 IFNpbmNlIHRoZXJlIGlzIGluY29uc2lzdGVuY3kgYmV0d2VlbiBKU0VQIGFuZCBTRFAgDQo+IEJV TkRMRSBwcm90b2NvbCwgcmVnYXJkaW5nIGJ1bmRsZS1vbmx5ICJtPSIsIEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgaXMg dGhlIGZhdWx0IA0KPiBvZiBib3RoIEpTRVAgYW5kIFNEUCBCVU5ETEUgcHJvdG9jb2wuIHRoZSBi ZXN0IHdheSBpcyBib3RoIEpTRVAgYW5kIA0KPiBTRFAgQlVORExFIHByb3RvY29sIHNob3VsZCBt YWtlIGJpcyBkb2N1bWVudHMgaW4gcGFyYWxsZWwsIHRvIG1ha2UgDQo+IHN1cmUgY29uc2lzdGVu dGx5IGlzc3VlcyBnZXQgcmVzb2x2ZWQuIFRoZSBkcmFmdA0KPiBzYWlkOiDigJwgVGhlIGZvcm1l ciBjb25jZXJuIHdhcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQgdmlhIGFuIHVwZGF0ZSB0byBbUkZDOTE0M10g4oCdIA0K PiBXaGVyZSBpcyB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgc3BlY2lmeWluZyB1cGRhdGUgdG8gUkZDOTE0Mz8gV2l0 aG91dCBSRkM5MTQzYmlzIA0KPiB0byBiZSBwcm9wb3NlZCBvbiB0aGUgc2FtZSB0YWJsZSwgSSBh bSBub3Qgc3VyZSBob3cgd2UgY2FuIHByZXZlbnQgDQo+IGluY29uc2lzdGVuY3kgaXNzdWUgYmV0 d2VlbiB0aGlzIFJGQzg4MjliaXMgYW5kIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUgUkZDOTE0M2JpcyBmcm9tIGhhcHBl bmluZyBhZ2Fpbi4NCg0KSXTigJlzIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRoZSBzMS4zIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9ucyBpcyBu b3QgY2xlYXIgYW5kIHdlIHdlcmUgbWF5YmUgYSBsaXR0bGUgb3ZlcnplYWxvdXMgd2l0aCBvdXIg cmVmZXJlbmNlIHVwZGF0ZXMuIFdoZW4gUkZDIDg4MjkgKEpTRVApIHdhcyBwdWJsaXNoZWQsIHRo ZXJlIHdhcyBhIGNvbnRyYWRpY3Rpb24gcmVnYXJkaW5nIGJ1bmRsZS1vbmx5ICJtPeKAnCBzZWN0 aW9ucyBiZXR3ZWVuIEpTRVAgYW5kIEJVTkRMRSAoYXMgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGluIFJGQyA4ODQzKS4g VGhpcyBjb250cmFkaWN0aW9uIHdhcyBleHBsYWluZWQgaW4gczEuMyBvZiBSRkMgODgyOS4gUkZD IDkxNDMsIHdoaWNoIHVwZGF0ZXMgUkZDIDg4NDMpIGFuZCB0aGlzIEktRCBhcmUgdGhlIOKAnGZp eCIuICBNYXliZSB0aGlzIHdvdWxkIGJlIGNsZWFyZXI6DQoNCiAgIFdoZW4gW1JGQzg4MjldIHdh cyBwdWJsaXNoZWQsIGluY29uc2lzdGVuY2llcyByZWdhcmRpbmcgQlVORExFDQogICBvcGVyYXRp b24gd2VyZSBpZGVudGlmaWVkIHdpdGggcmVnYXJkIHRvIGJvdGggdGhlDQogICBzcGVjaWZpY2F0 aW9uIHRleHQgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBiZWhhdmlvci4gIFRoZSBmb3JtZXIN CiAgIGNvbmNlcm4gd2FzIGFkZHJlc3NlZCB2aWEgYW4gdXBkYXRlIHRvIEJVTkRMRSwgc2VlIFtS RkM5MTQzXS4NCg0KW1FpbiBXdV0gVGhhbmtzIGZvciBwcm9wb3NlZCBjaGFuZ2UgZm9yIGNsYXJp ZmljYXRpb24sIEkgdGhpbmsgeW91IGFkZHJlc3MgbXkgY29uZnVzaW9uLg0KPiBNaW5vciBpc3N1 ZToNCj4gVGhlIGRyYWZ0IHNhaWQ6DQo+IOKAnA0KPiBXaGVuIFtSRkM4ODI5XSB3YXMgcHVibGlz aGVkLCBpbmNvbnNpc3RlbmNpZXMgcmVnYXJkaW5nIEJVTkRMRSANCj4gW1JGQzkxNDNdIG9wZXJh dGlvbiB3ZXJlIGlkZW50aWZpZWQgd2l0aCByZWdhcmQgdG8gYm90aCB0aGUgDQo+IHNwZWNpZmlj YXRpb24gdGV4dCBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGJlaGF2aW9yLiDigJ0gV2hhdCBp cyB0aGUgDQo+IGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgYmV0d2VlbiBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRleHQgYW5kIGltcGxl bWVudGF0aW9uIGJlaGF2aW9yPyBXaHkgDQo+IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gdGV4dCBjYW4gbm90IHNw ZWNpZnkgdGhlIHN0YW5kYXJkIGJlaGF2aW9yIGZvciB0aGUgZW5kcG9pbnRzIGltcGxlbWVudGF0 aW9uPw0KDQpUaGUgZGlmZmVyZW5jZXMgd2VyZSBhcyBub3RlZCBpbiB0aGUgcmVtYWluZGVyIG9m IHRoZSBwYXJhLg0KDQogW1FpbiBXdV0gQWZ0ZXIgSSByZS1yZWFkIFJGQzkxNDMgYW5kIHRoaXMg ZHJhZnQsIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB5b3UgYXJlIHJpZ2h0LiANCiBCdXQgb25lIG1pbm9yIHN1Z2dlc3Rp b24gaXMsIHRvIG1ha2UgY2xlYXIgd2hpY2ggc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiB5b3UgYXJlIHJlZmVycmVk IHRvIHdoZW4geW91IHNhaWQNCiAiTWFya2luZyAibT0iIHNlY3Rpb25zIGFzIGJ1bmRsZS1vbmx5 IGFzIGluZGljYXRlZCBieSB0aGUgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiIgYXMgZm9sbG93cw0KIg0KICAgICAg IGl0IHdhcyBvYnNlcnZlZCB0aGF0IHNvbWUgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIGltcGxlbWVudGVkIHRo ZQkNCiAJICAgIm1heC1idW5kbGUiIGJ1bmRsZSBwb2xpY3kgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBbUkZDODgyOV0g YnkgYXNzdW1pbmcgdGhhdAkNCiAJICAgYnVuZGxpbmcgaGFkIGFscmVhZHkgYmVlbiBuZWdvdGlh dGVkLCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBtYXJraW5nICJtPSIJDQogCSAgIHNlY3Rpb25zIGFzIGJ1bmRsZS1v bmx5IGFzIGluZGljYXRlZCBieSAqKnRoZSBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uKioNCiINCnRoaXMgc3BlY2lm aWNhdGlvbiBvciBzb21ldGhpbmcgZWxzZT8gTWFrZSBzZW5zZT8NCg0KPiBSRkM4ODI5IHNhaWQ6 DQo+IOKAnA0KPiDvgawgICAgICAgSlNFUCBwcmVzY3JpYmVzIHRoYXQgc2FpZCAibT0iIHNlY3Rp b25zIHNob3VsZCB1c2UgcG9ydCB6ZXJvIGFuZCBhZGQgYW4NCj4gImE9YnVuZGxlLW9ubHkiIGF0 dHJpYnV0ZSBpbiBpbml0aWFsIG9mZmVycywgYnV0IG5vdCBpbiBhbnN3ZXJzIG9yIHN1YnNlcXVl bnQNCj4gb2ZmZXJzLiDvgawgICAgICAgQlVORExFIHByZXNjcmliZXMgdGhhdCB0aGVzZSAibT0i IHNlY3Rpb25zIHNob3VsZCBiZSBtYXJrZWQgYXMNCj4gZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91 cyBwb2ludCwgYnV0IGluIGFsbCBvZmZlcnMgYW5kIGFuc3dlcnMuIO+BrCAgICAgICBNb3N0DQo+ IGN1cnJlbnQgYnJvd3NlcnMgZG8gbm90IG1hcmsgYW55ICJtPSIgc2VjdGlvbnMgd2l0aCBwb3J0 IHplcm8gYW5kIA0KPiBpbnN0ZWFkIHVzZSB0aGUgc2FtZSBwb3J0IGZvciBhbGwgYnVuZGxlZCAi bT0iIHNlY3Rpb25zOyBzb21lIG90aGVycyANCj4gZm9sbG93IHRoZSBKU0VQIGJlaGF2aW9yIOKA nSBJZiBib3RoIEpTRVAgcHJvdG9jb2wgYW5kIFNEUCBCVU5ERUwgDQo+IHByb3RvY29sIGRlZmlu ZSBjb25zaXN0ZW50IHN0YW5kYXJkIGJlaGF2aW9yLCBicm93c2VyIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIA0K PiBmb2xsb3dzIHN0YW5kYXJkIGJlaGF2aW9yIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gSlNFUCBhbmQgU0RQIEJVTkRF TCBwcm90b2NvbCwgDQo+IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGluY29uc2lzdGVuY3kgd2lsbCBhdXRvbWF0 aWNhbGx5IGdvIGF3YXksIG5vPw0K From nobody Tue Mar 29 05:39:44 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594C83A187E; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 05:39:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s1jK8RuGCnoe; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EUR04-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-he1eur04on0602.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe0d::602]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B4803A1896; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 05:39:34 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=dj7pBj5n8lOptsr8h+X2lTjaWim9aK4PAn093L7Fke5bywZhqjwTVQ/Q/qhYF+Y4ek7zRjr6a8LXepWHd3olzO7dvs2vZdwFzENqRC8NrCyXd+Df59pUrHNjLHdiEkx1z+9zqvI2Uc2QruxjHqkoLKvH1/3BnTEaqOv7KmxzKS1F+YSmsVPw0jOodqQr0t7jzyAVg7pjec9PcyQdYc24LLitVfMohUulUNzKr9UOemmVYGJHXLPBJhBxV25xWu53d8xDqmWcQIP+jcAD7YLKcT0JHUWwji3Xh6W9zNtFaU3AKYf1SG1GpFlB8uNWTYw0WCN5KIz9gZ9QYOnqyL5vNg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=8ddXyyKWumzFD+4jhB+Fw7LqXG/UJ1dOK0ugTDB1EZc=; b=bA7P1CVp1RuKBVKJS/RC0XEZLX7+1BbmVATw6k/a2z/GG6Ga6ykKljHmLUdCURAsJrm//+fFYmDCflEK5mcafm7zqkqHDQZpRslFb/nTdTj/aMgAnmpFWfUIgQu/U78pLGYzDQrURIfSjKkYKULacRrX7jKt6u3xNGYuAXSWFYfL9W9uHoT6R5R/0dUlu6zy7fopnPX/LaQ0qnWvvDVQt2iAeYG57nRURdMovjuqnvwA3nyvOLV7gZKyPFSPG4Uf2wTIGqmil27D4YkieL56W2Q+K0Ge+XP6yr15E+z93zHGUGhtB4XSBYkxjcrz8MpA9whGw0MeA48tr/QrgsflJQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8ddXyyKWumzFD+4jhB+Fw7LqXG/UJ1dOK0ugTDB1EZc=; b=OJm+u1VZ9Pgi7m/AI/1rFqd5U/xOko3DmfCvotPCgaBcF5cOLe3i5paHX6pu8BraD83v+BimEpYHvJ5OX9896yAeFVngFq+ob914eXevUq6xGqjBjFRw2LWPTKRMdXP8Ao79GghGNNHQshfNaAqozyHoMOr6FqoOewdvwjoWrwM= Received: from HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:7:9f::27) by VI1PR07MB4559.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:74::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5123.16; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0000 Received: from HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6c96:2cc8:3d93:a6d8]) by HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6c96:2cc8:3d93:a6d8%4]) with mapi id 15.20.5123.016; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0000 From: Christer Holmberg To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Sean Turner CC: "last-call@ietf.org" , "gen-art@ietf.org" , RTCWeb IETF , "draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 Thread-Index: AQHYQxdmy4j4xmXIM0asw+YhCD6gv6zVrmGAgAAzmYw= Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: <164840334560.25727.8727238035250838155@ietfa.amsl.com> <320CCABF-5283-4B07-B637-FC03F582CA2D@sn3rd.com> <72fa004c-cdd8-807d-1ba6-4ba2b3b15969@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <72fa004c-cdd8-807d-1ba6-4ba2b3b15969@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com; x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 52c511e9-aae3-4bd1-308b-08da11812b82 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB4559:EE_ x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230001)(4636009)(366004)(166002)(82960400001)(66946007)(122000001)(66556008)(5660300002)(26005)(38100700002)(966005)(9686003)(186003)(66446008)(66476007)(64756008)(4326008)(55016003)(52536014)(76116006)(110136005)(33656002)(54906003)(316002)(6506007)(71200400001)(8936002)(7696005)(8676002)(508600001)(38070700005)(53546011)(83380400001)(2906002)(86362001)(44832011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?us-ascii?Q?jbcMrbw2r9ESoA4o2LLa9zFxlICTZMlHtNMcIGHJyWLrdrj4OnvnwrDLUYS+?= =?us-ascii?Q?rYt4D4DZSulradmW57VIobZzbARdtUFbgOXmXM/S6ZaHG3bqZArFASQ/DseS?= =?us-ascii?Q?fikM3xzy1wfKfCj8wRBvApTJ6L1FSl67UujIq7KdWY0+LNAFox3buT38PIPP?= =?us-ascii?Q?VRiAgK5uB6mfsbhEAS2x8gkn5v7cDdEvEtslkRo8xrugT5pOzn/SKGe/VDRB?= =?us-ascii?Q?Gv5RGyiD86vNGytz584dOFko3TlVaNOo0bQ8ilnMNzGcIyI5hYS4nXcfghPy?= =?us-ascii?Q?3+0JxsED8CBMlcysNFTS3CFyroTDtvn5nAqq/gifytPHdqr6FwKeVsEwnHf4?= =?us-ascii?Q?ML+fdHByPF9Uy5ofR2F4C2a+Vrxe1z+TBcbq2JpKW11V0twmasPhH/HTh+js?= =?us-ascii?Q?+O9ZGAxgDA8zoGGXVjGonduZjgtdUh7kiTT6QI8P7OITMmKVxONQbsiZnCHv?= =?us-ascii?Q?s6sMY7IBjkE4na/UQg/YihgaNd52bmu7l6ctMRehYiuXcPQVtznclq9C7vQH?= =?us-ascii?Q?B62ynt05ID0N+mgeI+ASZB6pdIK4QC21acD4WwaDyffGJSBbU8+ruiOKtHJW?= =?us-ascii?Q?RlYaAT8m5EiAOI9W2q82E6CndzEQEDcTKZCe+2d0tkoGcz3cd2Jdb65q3drK?= =?us-ascii?Q?hp/qbqEjnJHkov1A0QRnDKvzfIhEQyxDUDXj29Gsdytm40g/cETLNu/FMdf8?= =?us-ascii?Q?5rXe+h6t1a54PKeDO+MnGRNZ2mgEjSgB1unbOBLSjvpeftW+gewWdg6UvTkb?= =?us-ascii?Q?Q4LWRRAYKXjm0a8C3aBAEnIW7q4RjTWVDtJ+Fb7sdIr+2gcJFM8HqhgAOUQ9?= =?us-ascii?Q?6vlpUlDwShAdzwtWrRyaBepqmf13jeyfOC2jdeJe1hsfc1UEXksMhvlWmKVC?= =?us-ascii?Q?HtJTJdUcv3WWoNwv4sAPuX8KXyb79zY67wEKL6yZ0GjVQLcbN2FGuwwqUG3m?= =?us-ascii?Q?ebafwPslNQtAx17pcgfrDGc97XQ8uSpD+BvZ3av1QxaLdn3tX/UN9wD1e02G?= =?us-ascii?Q?1FYkhBrQj2lp2PaEwwmOu7oYrHtv8/rVNlf0GiDSFJDduyXQ8rukktixOMOv?= =?us-ascii?Q?TFciw+9JfyUOIzJWK4p5UFt4gmNpmF6OREdVseuAOtPb8fM17z/7R/76Vooi?= =?us-ascii?Q?7L3+4Z9w1+XeeDE/3iCel4OgvEhZnsX/oh1z6CAzPrfMjwrm1RpgYhcTL3f/?= =?us-ascii?Q?Okyrfl51350LuJVLSNK+ei6Stde+lZ8s3VUhQK3nKTEN+4SZ5LPhMYcF5XyO?= =?us-ascii?Q?T5rxPVeF0PfujT7Z8ru29oS/OAE+Rte+jcISPaxrndE4vdrUOBPC1Gg7M5Cm?= =?us-ascii?Q?zPviwgv7/8mV7jkjUldsff3LYCx0gXlYYYVSq4DhFi2j1wyBUb/JFApoUy55?= =?us-ascii?Q?9GuQhYkqNCnNOs7oDdTzKyvV5sa/ASQtpqJX5MQxa4Nu5OVJeViO4i+wIj3t?= =?us-ascii?Q?+DSV7LuPQ5EldlmUcAzosRNM0SSY+R4PmIXlZt/XQe6oyQQPElEhkx+HWS3f?= =?us-ascii?Q?MVU0G+wI08//bjSjl2+rwEgtnB1HEEGNJSqtvFvP5S/iYx7Q8YbBCNRdVlh4?= =?us-ascii?Q?59ZIf1nrF7M5ELFqyXTXjxC++rFnhSSYcEczzMtGTtrm5ZN/0vc/gIgp5sXL?= =?us-ascii?Q?twLAuDKcRYiHJ6Jm4oDCwaAhDFit9tdVSHus2V0Yuzitj66lozHz/9PM8HJ7?= =?us-ascii?Q?jXotYWyi5pyr2ffrGi/JMzwPBMx2Ku3bWq1PFMExRlVAozNFb7AKSjnK3xCc?= =?us-ascii?Q?L2XVeeyh8mHONfM7ypWhuR1zo8Zi//E=3D?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HE1PR07MB444195619B7E78EF95184FC4931E9HE1PR07MB4441eurp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 52c511e9-aae3-4bd1-308b-08da11812b82 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Mar 2022 12:39:30.1627 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ucek8wQyHvP3jsA2e4gI9QKHxYTnW04TAM3CIuWXBzqOJ23zlj8I1cLBwgPE6HDS/c19wC+qITSMbNN+093LIovEto3Mt2Q/0Bwv+oZDrRM= X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB4559 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:39:42 -0000 --_000_HE1PR07MB444195619B7E78EF95184FC4931E9HE1PR07MB4441eurp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, A couple of comments: First, in general, if we are going to update the reference version, we need= to verify that we don't break anything. Second, most of the RTCWEB RFCs referencing the WebRTC spec seem to referen= ce *without* a version (i.e., https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/). Many RFCs als= o reference to RFC 8825 for WebRTC, and RFC 8825 also reference WebRTC with= out a version. So, is there a reason why we would use a version in JSEP, while not in othe= r RFCs? Note that often the WebRTC reference is Normative. I do understand that JSEP is very closely linked to WebRTC, why there might= be a need to reference a given version. But, then again, we need to make s= ure that updating the version does not break anything. Regards, Christer ________________________________ From: Gen-art on behalf of Joel M. Halpern Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:08:37 AM To: Sean Turner Cc: last-call@ietf.org ; gen-art@ietf.org ; RTCWeb IETF ; draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ie= tf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc88= 29bis-02 Thanks Sean. I finally concluded that was the intent. And I think technically it says so. If you could look at making that more clear early, it would probably help those readers who are not as familiar with the cited W3C API. Yours, Joel On 3/28/2022 10:47 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > > >> On Mar 27, 2022, at 13:49, Joel Halpern via Datatracker wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> . >> >> Document: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02 >> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >> Review Date: 2022-03-27 >> IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-05 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. >> However, there are some issues that should be considered before final ap= proval. >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: >> I found myself confused as a reader about one aspect of this documen= t The >> document seems to describe both the Interface to the JSEP and the de= tails >> of what the underlying system must do in response to JSEP operations= . The >> later is described very well and clearly. The former is described q= uite >> vaguely. I suspect that the assumption is that the required paramet= ers are >> described in the W3C documents. But it is hard to tell, and the onl= y >> formal reference is a vague citation in the introduction to an outda= ted W3C >> specification. A little more clarity on how an implementor is suppo= sed to >> know what actual interface objects, methods, and parameters they nee= d to >> provide would be helpful. Also, the reference should be updated to >> whatever is the current W3C specification. > > Will check on updating the reference. I would be floored if we couldn't p= oint to it. > > The basic idea here is that the W3C WebRTC spec is API and this is the pr= otocol spec. > >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art --_000_HE1PR07MB444195619B7E78EF95184FC4931E9HE1PR07MB4441eurp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

A couple of comments:

 

First, in general, if we are go= ing to update the reference version, we need to verify that we don’t = break anything.

 

Second, most of the RTCWEB RFCs= referencing the WebRTC spec seem to reference *without* a version (= i.e., https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/= ). Many RFCs also reference to RFC 8825 for WebRTC, and RFC 8825 also refer= ence WebRTC without a version.

 

So, is there a reason why we wo= uld use a version in JSEP, while not in other RFCs? Note that often the Web= RTC reference is Normative.

 

I do understand that JSEP is ve= ry closely linked to WebRTC, why there might be a need to reference a given= version. But, then again, we need to make sure that updating the version d= oes not break anything.

 

Regards,

 

Christer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From:<= /span> Gen-art <gen-art-b= ounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>= ;
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:08:37 AM
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>; gen-art@ietf.org = <gen-art@ietf.org>; RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>; draft-uberti= -rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf.org <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@ietf= .org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-uberti-rtcwe= b-rfc8829bis-02

 

Thanks Sean.  I finally co= ncluded that was the intent.  And I think
technically it says so.
If you could look at making that more clear early, it would probably
help those readers who are not as familiar with the cited W3C API.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/28/2022 10:47 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 27, 2022, at 13:49, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <norepl= y@ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Are= a
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments = just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review Date: 2022-03-27
>> IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-05
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>
>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Stan= dard.
>> However, there are some issues that should be considered before fi= nal approval.
>>
>> Major issues: None
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>     I found myself confused as a reader about = one aspect of this document  The
>>     document seems to describe both the Interf= ace to the JSEP and the details
>>     of what the underlying system must do in r= esponse to JSEP operations.  The
>>     later is described very well and clearly.&= nbsp; The former is described quite
>>     vaguely.  I suspect that the assumpti= on is that the required parameters are
>>     described in the W3C documents.  But = it is hard to tell, and the only
>>     formal reference is a vague citation in th= e introduction to an outdated W3C
>>     specification.  A little more clarity= on how an implementor is supposed to
>>     know what actual interface objects, method= s, and parameters they need to
>>     provide would be helpful.  Also, the = reference should be updated to
>>     whatever is the current W3C specification.=
>
> Will check on updating the reference. I would be floored if we couldn&= #8217;t point to it.
>
> The basic idea here is that the W3C WebRTC spec is API and this is the= protocol spec.
>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

--_000_HE1PR07MB444195619B7E78EF95184FC4931E9HE1PR07MB4441eurp_--