bump > On Apr 26, 2022, at 21:39, Sean Turner <sean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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
