JavaScript Session Establishment Protocol
draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-24

Summary: Has enough positions to pass.

Ben Campbell Yes

Comment (2017-12-11)
I'm balloting "yes", but I have some minor comments and nits:

Substantive:

- General:
I still find the edges around where SDP is and isn't required a bit vague. Section 3.3 says that the JSEP implementation internal representation is SDP. While I have trouble imagining implementing this otherwise, do we really mean to mandate the internals? Is there an assumption that said internal representation is _serialized_ SDP vs some abstract internal representation? 

Section 3.1 says that the signaling model is not specified. Is there an implicit assumption that, however things are signaled, the signaling process moves around serialized SDP? Or is it envisioned that one could write an application without serialized SDP occurring anywhere above the API?

-5, throughout: There are a number of normative keywords used in constructions like "... MUST foo, as described in RFCXXX". That construction is ambiguous about whether it defines a normative requirement to do something, and the doing of that something is described in the RFC, or if describes the referenced RFC as defining the MUST. 

In general, it's best to avoid using 2119/8174 keywords to talk about external requirements, except as a direct quote. I think this is especially true here given the interdependencies between drafts in cluster 238. If in the future we update a dependency to change a normative requirement, we risk creating conflicts, and we make it unclear which text is authoritative.

-5.1.1: I think the operative requirement is "MUST support" rather than "MUST indicate support". (While indication may also be required, it seems a consequence of "MUST support".)

-5.1.2: " Any profile in the offer matching one of the following MUST be accepted:"
Isn't the real requirement that any of the following must be interpreted the same, or otherwise in some specified way? I assume there may be completely unrelated reasons to reject an m-section, but the "MUST be accepted" language seems to overrule that.

-5.4: "The SDP returned from createOffer or createAnswer MUST NOT be changed
   before passing it to setLocalDescription."
Is that a requirement on the JSEP implementation, or the javascript application? If the latter, is it appropriate to put normative requirements on the application? It seems like it would be better to normatively state the JSEP implementations's behavior when the application does something incorrect.  (Which seems to be done further down the page.)

-5.7: " The effect of rollback MUST be the same regardless of whether setLocalDescription or setRemoteDescription is called."
Does that mean if I call setLocalDescription, then rollback with a call to setRemoteDescription, _both_ are rolled back?

-5.8.3: The MUSTs in this section seem to be putting requirements on the SDP being parsed. Shouldn't they instead describe the parser's behavior based on that SDP input? The correctness of the SDP being parsed seems beyond the control of the implementation.

-8, second paragraph: When describing how the javascript is untrusted, it may be worth mentioning that it may have been downloaded from an untrusted source.

Editorial and Nits:

-1.1: Please expand ICE and MCU on the first mention.
s/config/configuration
Sentence starting with "Through its abstraction of signaling...": Should that say "Though it abstracts signaling..."

-2: Please consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174. There are a number of instances of lowercase versions of normative keywords.

-3.2, paragraph 2: The MUST seems like a statement of fact.

-3.4.1, 2nd paragraph: Please expand or explain "mid" on first mention. (It is explained 3.5.2.1)

-3.5.1, last paragraph: Inconsistent capitalization: "MID"

-3.5.2.1: Please expand (or define) "ufrag" on first mention.

-3.6.1, first paragraph: is "intersect" the correct verb here? Missing conjunction in "hardware decoder capababilities, local policy".

-3.6.2, 2nd paragraph: s/"may be producing"/"may produce"

-4.1.2: Please expand LS on first mention. (I can guess from context. Please don't make me :-)  )

- 4.1.6: s/"codec/RTP/RTCP"/"codec, RTC, or RTCP"
"for each SDP line, the generation of the SDP will follow the process defined for generating an initial offer from the document that specifies the given SDP line."
While I worked out what that means, I found "document" to be ambiguous. At first I interpreted it as the "SDP document" rather than "the RFC". (Note this occurs several times in subsequent sections.)

-4.1.8, third paragraph: ""pranswer" indicates that a description should be parsed as an
   answer, but not a final answer"
I think it would be more clear to say "... parsed as a provisional answer, rather than a final answer".

-5.2.1: Paragraph starting with: " Each m= section, provided it is not marked as bundle-only, MUST generate..."
The m= section is not the real actor here, is it?

Alissa Cooper Yes

Spencer Dawkins Yes

Comment (2017-12-13)
I found myself wishing that Section 3.8 was a bit clearer about the advantages of sequential versus parallel forking. I can imagine some of the advantages because I have a SIP background, and I can dig some of what I was expecting to see in 3.8.2, but I'm imagining and digging, and I'm betting that the document could be more explicit about the tradeoffs - just saying "if you're communicating with a SIP endpoint, most of them can only exchange media with one endpoint at a time" is already helping.

Adam Roach Yes

Alia Atlas No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Benoit Claise No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2017-12-13)
I think that this is a well-written document -- while reading through the Directorate reviews the last line of PHB's SecDir comment made me laugh.

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Comment (2017-12-02)
I have read the whole document, but I didn't check references or correctness of section numbers ;-).

Kathleen Moriarty No Objection

Comment (2017-12-12)
I'm sure the RFC editor would have caught this nit:

2nd paragraph of security considerations section:
While formally the JSEP interface is an API, it is better to think of
   it is an Internet protocol
s/is an Internet/as an Internet/

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Eric Rescorla Recuse

Comment (2017-12-12)
I am an author on this document.

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Record