Subject: [tsvwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 21:29:45 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-16: No Objection

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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 5:

The draft claims that "Currently, all WebRTC video is assumed to be
interactive" and makes a reference to [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports], but
the referred draft does not contain any explanation regarding this. Is
this some kind of well known fact in WebRTC circles? If so, is it
documented somewhere?

Section 8:

Is this really required to be in the document? The shepherd writeup does
explain the rationale for the downrefs.

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 19:47:08 +0000

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for the comments.

The shepherd write-up covered this topic in part:

   IETF LC discussion resulted in minor edits and resolution of one issue.
   The issue arose when Magnus Westerlund asked the (seemingly simple)
   question of how a browser determines whether WebRTC video is interactive.

   The answer turns out to be that the browser doesn't do that - all WebRTC
   video (and actually all media) is interactive for a WebRTC application
   running in a browser because the WebRTC browser API can't specify that
   video (or media) is non-interactive.   In addition to explaining that in
   this draft, the next version (-13) of the WebRTC transports draft
   (draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports) will state that all WebRTC media is
   interactive.

There is agreed-to text for the WebRTC transports draft, so I'm a bit surprised
that the revised (-13) version of that draft hasn't appeared yet.   I'm cc:'ing
the RTCWEB WG mailing list to (gently) remind Harald to revise and post that
draft, soon please ;-).

I would suggest that Spencer promise not to announce IESG approval
of this tsvwg-rtcweb-qos draft until that necessary version of the WebRTC
transports draft is posted.

> explain the rationale for the downrefs.

This downref explanation was added based on a "show your work" rationale -
part of the context on is that there has been some recent discussion in TSVWG
about a possible revision to RFC 4594, one of the downref-ed RFCs. 

If the IESG would like to see Section 8 removed, that won't be a problem, 
but I'd prefer to see guidance on this from the IESG as a whole.

Thanks,
--David (as draft shepherd).