Subject: [tram] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-tram-01-01: (with BLOCK)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:31:22 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-tram-01-01: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a little confused. Is the charter going for external review or not?
Or is the IESG being asked to comment on whether it should go for
external review or not? If it were going for external review I would have
put my point below in a comment. But if this is the last opportunity for
the IESG to weigh in on this then I'd like to see the point below
discussed. I don't think this charter needs to go for external review.

My substantive point has to do with the scoping and use cases being dealt
with in TRAM. I feel like some of the confusion over the TRAM drafts has
related to whether the mechanisms being specified are expected to be used
only within the WebRTC context or outside of it as well, for STUN/TURN
generally. I'd like to see a commitment to clarity in this regard called
out in the charter. E.g., "In making updates to TURN and STUN, the
working group will clearly document the motivations and implications of
the updates both within the WebRTC context and more broadly" or something
like that.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:24:16 -0500

Dear Tramsters,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tram/

I know what I think the answer to Alissa's question is, but since the TRAM
working group is the one signing up to do the work, I'd like to hear your
answer first.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:28:02 -0400

I don't know what "external review" is.

>     the updates both within the WebRTC context and more broadly" or

I'd be fine with adding that sentence to the charter.

Simon

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:37:21 -0500

Hi, Simon,

> Le 2015-10-14 14:24, Spencer Dawkins at IETF a écrit :

For working group recharters, sometimes we make big changes, and want about
the same level of input that we got on the initial charter, so we send the
charter to the IETF community for comments. When we do that, we are also
notifying other SDOs.

Sometimes we're making small changes, like adding two deliverables and
deleting mention of work that's already been completed, as this TRAM
recharter is doing. We can decide the change is small enough to "just do
it".

Knowing what a big change is, of course, is subjective. Alissa is referring
to a question on the ballot that asks for feedback about that from other
ADs.

So the TRAMsters can safely ignore that part of Alissa's Discuss, and focus
on her substantive point below (and thanks for expressing an opinion about
that).

Spencer

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:07:40 -0600

> I'd be fine with adding that sentence to the charter.

I do not want WebRTC (well, RTCWeb) to get a special status in the TRAM WG, same as I did not want it to get a special status in the ICE WG.  Both these WGs should focus on "making the Internet work better".  So I am fine in enumerating the list of technologies that use the output from TRAM (among them RTCWeb), or I am fine with a general commitment to make everything works better, but not with the text above.  Again, RTCWeb/WebRTC is not special.

Thanks.

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:45:36 +0000

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Simon Perreault <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

+1

TRAM work has already been scoped beyond WebRTC, so we should state it explicitly in the charter.

Cheers,

Gonzalo
> 
> Simon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

---

From: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:48:08 -0400

+1

-- 
Brandon Williams; Chief Architect
Cloud Networking; Akamai Technologies Inc.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:38:55 -0700

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part

I suggested the sentence above because there are already a couple of “special” mentions of WebRTC in the TRAM charter. If those stay in I think my clarification suggestion should stay too.

Alissa

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:23:18 -0500

OK, so I'm fine with "doing the right thing". The definitions of "doing the
right thing" seem to be either

- adding pointers to other (non-RTCWeb) uses, or

- dropping the mention of RTCWeb and phrasing this as general-purpose NAT
traversal.

So, if we're going to add pointers, I note that the shiny new ICE charter
says this:

"Interactive Connectivity Establishment was published as RFC 5245 in April
2010. Until recently the protocol had seen rather limited deployment. This
situation has changed drastically as ICE is mandatory to implement in
WebRTC, a set of technologies developed at the IETF and W3C to standardize
Real Time Communication on the Web. ICE was originally defined for the
Offer-Answer (RFC 3264) protocol used by SIP (RFC 3261). Later XMPP
(XEP-0176), RTSP (draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat), RTCWeb
(draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep) and other realtime media establishment protocols
have used the protocol. ICE is also used by non-realtime media protocols,
like HIP (RFC 5770) and RELOAD (RFC 6940)."

What else is applicable to TRAM, that's not on that list? Not that the TRAM
charter list needs to be exhaustive, of course.

Spencer

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >>     external review or not? If it were going for external review I
> would
> >>     have
> >>     related to whether the mechanisms being specified are expected to
> be
> >>     used
> I do not want WebRTC (well, RTCWeb) to get a special status in the TRAM
> WG, same as I did not want it to get a special status in the ICE WG.
> Both these WGs should focus on "making the Internet work better".  So I
> am fine in enumerating the list of technologies that use the output from
> TRAM (among them RTCWeb), or I am fine with a general commitment to make
> everything works better, but not with the text above.  Again,
> RTCWeb/WebRTC is not special.
>
>
> I suggested the sentence above because there are already a couple of
> “special” mentions of WebRTC in the TRAM charter. If those stay in I think
> my clarification suggestion should stay too.
>
> Alissa
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin