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.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern >> <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:08:37 AM >> To: Sean Turner <mailto:sean@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: mailto:last-call@xxxxxxxx <mailto:last-call@xxxxxxxx>; mailto:gen-art@xxxxxxxx >> <mailto:gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; RTCWeb IETF <mailto:rtcweb@xxxxxxxx>; >> mailto:draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis.all@xxxxxxxx<draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc882 >> mailto:9bis.all@xxxxxxxx> >> 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:noreply@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> -- >> last-call mailing list >> mailto:last-call@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
