Hi! I would really love to give our AD a revised version of this I-D soon. > On Apr 17, 2022, at 12:37, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmb...@ericsson.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > >> I feel very strongly that we must reference a stable version or else there >> is no way to know what is reviewed. The w3c spec was not approved before and >> was a draft >> so it was hard but at this point I think the REC version is the correct >> references. > > I don't object to referencing a specific version - I actually agree. > > My question is why JSEP uses an INFORMATIVE WebRTC reference WITH a version, > while other RTCWEB RFCs use NORMATIVE WebRTC references WITHOUT a version...
I didn’t do an exhaustive search, but I did note that RFCs 8825, 8827, and 8834 refer to the the W3C specification normatively as follows: https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/ There is no chance that there is any energy whatsoever to go back and change those three to refer to a specific version. So I think we will need to call those done. For this I-D, I originally submitted the following PR to update the reference to the final recommendation. I have updated that PR to also move the reference to be normative. See: https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/1024 Is there any objection to moving the reference to normative? >> So it should reference https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/REC-webrtc-20210126 > > RFC 8829 references https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/PR-webrtc-20201215/. I just > want to verify that there is no text etc in 8829bis that is not aligned with > 20210126. Harald or Cullen can one of you comment on this? The vast majority of PRs merged into the 202110126 version were marked as editorial. spt > Regards, > > Christer > > > >> On Mar 29, 2022, at 6:39 AM, Christer Holmberg >> <mailto:christer.holmberg=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> 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 >> 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 reference >> WebRTC without a version. >> >> So, is there a reason why we would use a version in JSEP, while not in other >> 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 >> sure that updating the version does not break anything. >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Gen-art <mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern >> <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:08:37 AM >> To: Sean Turner <mailto:s...@sn3rd.com> >> Cc: mailto:last-c...@ietf.org <mailto:last-c...@ietf.org>; >> mailto:gen-art@ietf.org >> <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>; RTCWeb IETF <mailto:rtc...@ietf.org>; >> mailto:draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis....@ietf.org<draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc882 >> mailto:9bis....@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of >> draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-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 >>>> <mailto:nore...@ietf.org> 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 >>>> >>>> <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 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: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> -- >> last-call mailing list >> mailto:last-c...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
