WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP)
draft-ietf-wish-whip-16

[Ballot discuss]
# AD Review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-15
cc @fpalombini

Thanks to Darrel Miller for his HTTPDIR review, and thank you to the authors for working on addressing my concerns about the use of HTTP. I could not find a resolution for only one of the points, reported below, all the others have been addressed. Additionally, I see you have already addressed COULD in the github version, but noting it here to make sure it gets fixed in v-16. You could also replace by MAY, rather than change it to lowercase could, up to you.

## Discuss

### Redefining conditional requests

Section 4.3.2.

I have the same comments Darrel had about the text describing conditional requests. (I am not sure Darrel's comment was about this following text, given that he reviewed a previous version of the doc)

As mentioned by Darrel:

>>If the WHIP session is using entity-tags for identifying the ICE sessions in explained in Section 4.1.1, a WHIP client sending a PATCH request for performing trickle ICE MUST include an "If-Match" header field with the latest known entity-tag as per Section 13.1.1 of [RFC9110]. When the PATCH request is received by the WHIP session, it MUST compare the indicated entity-tag value with the current entity-tag of the resource as per Section 13.1.1 of [RFC9110] and return a "412 Precondition Failed" response if they do not match. If the HTTP PATCH request does not contain an "If-Match" header the WHIP session MUST return an "428 Precondition Required" response as per Section 3 of [RFC6585].

>The paragraph that describes using conditional requests, should state that
>PATCHing a WHIP Resource MUST use conditional requests using a strong eTag and
>not attempt to respecify how conditional requests work. (...) Perhaps what
>this paragraph is trying to say is "if the WHIP session returns an eTag when
>creating the session, then a client MUST PATCH the session using that eTag in a
>conditional request header".

Sergio replied:

>I am concerned that we won't have a compliant implementation doing etags
>correctly if we don't describe the process in detail here.
>Which parts of the paragraphs are you more concerned about, and is any of
>the mandatory text going against the conditional request spec?

It's not about going against the conditional req spec, it is about re-specifying (and using normative text for doing so) what is already specified by HTTP, rather than using HTTP as it should be used. Please see BCP 56. Maybe you could use descriptive language instead, if you really want to say more.

Darrel had proposed text:

DM>  WHIP sessions that support ICE restarts MUST return a strong ETag as per [RFC9110] Section 8.8.3 in a successful response to a POST to the WHIP Endpoint.
DM> Successful PATCH requests to WHIP sessions that trigger a restart MUST return an updated ETag.

(This text might be adapted to the paragraph above, to remove the part about ICE restarts, but the main point applies).

[Ballot comment]
I have some comments which I believe will improve the specification when and if addressed -

  # Clarification on SRTP usage: the overview section describes that there is will be DTLS setup between WHIP client and media server and RTP/RTCP will flow after that. Unless we have a deeper understanding of how WebRTC security model and bundling works this is confusing. Yes, when we do RTP/RTCP mux and bundling then we do only one DTLS handshake, otherwise we DTLS and DTLS-SRTP is use for securing media. The current description is confusing as it just describes as ICE > DTLS -> RTP/RTCP. I think it is necessary to explain a bit on how this specification does not deviate from the MUST have sRTP/sRTCP usage when it describes RTP/RTCP flow. It should also explain why one DTLS handshake is enough here.

  # Figure 1 is also a bit confusing. The WHIP session is described as allocated http resources at WHIP endpoint, but draws WHIP session as something out of WHIP endpoint.

  # Can the WHIP endpoint and media server be co-located? if yes, I would be great to be explicit about it.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Bernard Aboba for his TSVART review.

I would like to discuss two points -

1. Rate adaption considerations when using WebRTC for ingest: as pointed out by the TSVART reviewer, the existing congestion control used in the WebRTC libraries is not suitable for streaming, hence, need special considerations to be used as it is. I was expecting at least some considerations or warnings in the section 4.2.

2. As HTTP proxying is common, why should this specification not have any discussion on WHIP client behind a proxy. I am assuming it does not change much but I was at least expecting some considerations for such a scenario.

[Ballot comment]
I have some comments which I believe will improve the specification when and if addressed -

  # Clarification on SRTP usage: the overview section describes that there is will be DTLS setup between WHIP client and media server and RTP/RTCP will flow after that. Unless we have a deeper understanding of how WebRTC security model and bundling works this is confusing. Yes, when we do RTP/RTCP mux and bundling then we do only one DTLS handshake, otherwise we DTLS and DTLS-SRTP is use for securing media. The current description is confusing as it just describes as ICE > DTLS -> RTP/RTCP. I think it is necessary to explain a bit on how this specification does not deviate from the MUST have sRTP/sRTCP usage when it describes RTP/RTCP flow. It should also explain why one DTLS handshake is enough here.

# Figure 1 is also a bit confusing. The WHIP session is described as allocated http resources at WHIP endpoint, but draws WHIP session as something out of WHIP endpoint.

# Can the WHIP endpoint and media server be co-located? if yes, I would be great to be explicit about it.

[Ballot discuss]
I have a few minor DISCUSS items.

It seems the proposed registry review mailing list and the (current)
WG discussion list are the same list. It might make sense to split this,
in case the WG closes and the WG list eventually goes away?

        An RFC is REQUIRED for the registration of new value data types
        that modify [...]

This should probably say: A Standards Track RFC is REQUIRED [...]

        within the IETF

What is the meaning of "within the IETF"? A random person submitting
a draft no one saw is "within the IETF"?

[Ballot comment]
Maybe instead of "whip session" use "whip session server" to make
the difference more clear between endpoints and states? The various
contexts that use "whip session" really confuses me on what this
really is. A state or an endpoint. I think if it consistently used
"whip session server" or "whip session endpoint" for the server/endpoint
and "whip session" for the state, it would be clearer.

Mixed use of SHALL and MUST imply these are different. Maybe just
stick with MUST ?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document -- I tried reading it, but quickly realized that much of it is sufficiently outside my area of expertise that I have nothing useful to add...

[Ballot discuss]
# AD Review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-14
cc @fpalombini

Thank you for the work on this document, and thanks to Darrel Miller for his HTTPDIR review. I agree with his concerns about the use of HTTP, which is the main reason for my DISCUSS.

## Discuss

### HTTP Usage

Section 4:

> If the HTTP POST to the WHIP endpoint has a content type different than "application/sdp", the WHIP endpoint MUST reject the HTTP POST request with a "415 Unsupported Media Type" error response.

From BCP 56, this seems to me to re-describe standard HTTP behavior. Maybe what should be specified is that the WHIP endpoint expects an "application/sdp" media type.

> The WHIP endpoints MUST return an "405 Method Not Allowed" response for any HTTP request method different than OPTIONS and POST on the endpoint URL in order to reserve their usage for future versions of this protocol specification.

> The WHIP sessions MUST return an "405 Method Not Allowed" response for any HTTP request method different than PATCH and DELETE on the session URLs in order to reserve their usage for future versions of this protocol specification.

Same comment. Maybe what you want to say is that other methods than those mentioned MUST NOT be implemented, and let HTTP deal with the correct error response. However, as Mark (in CC) rightfully pointed out HTTP requires GET to be supported (see RFC9110 Section 9.1). Mark suggests that WHIP be silent about other methods, to allow future revisions to use them.

Section 4.1.1.

> If the HTTP PATCH to the WHIP session has a content type different than "application/trickle-ice-sdpfrag", the WHIP session MUST reject the HTTP PATCH request with a "415 Unsupported Media Type" error response.

Again this seems standard HTTP behavior. Maybe what you wanted to say is that "the content type MUST be ..." (and let HTTP take care of the rest).

> If the WHIP session supports either Trickle ICE or ICE restarts, but not both, it MUST return a "422 Unprocessable Content" response for the HTTP PATCH requests that are not supported as per Section 15.5.21 of [RFC9110].

This might also be a problem, because it defines which error response to use based on the application error. See BCP 56 Section 4.6 about why this is a bad idea. Is this truly necessary?

Section 4.1.2.

I have the same comments Darrel had about the text describing conditional requests. (I am not sure Darrel's comment was about this following text, given that he reviewed a previous version of the doc)

As mentioned by Darrel:

>>If the WHIP session is using entity-tags for identifying the ICE sessions in explained in Section 4.1.1, a WHIP client sending a PATCH request for performing trickle ICE MUST include an "If-Match" header field with the latest known entity-tag as per Section 13.1.1 of [RFC9110]. When the PATCH request is received by the WHIP session, it MUST compare the indicated entity-tag value with the current entity-tag of the resource as per Section 13.1.1 of [RFC9110] and return a "412 Precondition Failed" response if they do not match. If the HTTP PATCH request does not contain an "If-Match" header the WHIP session MUST return an "428 Precondition Required" response as per Section 3 of [RFC6585].

>The paragraph that describes using conditional requests, should state that
>PATCHing a WHIP Resource MUST use conditional requests using a strong eTag and
>not attempt to respecify how conditional requests work. (...) Perhaps what
>this paragraph is trying to say is "if the WHIP session returns an eTag when
>creating the session, then a client MUST PATCH the session using that eTag in a
>conditional request header".

Sergio replied:

>I am concerned that we won't have a compliant implementation doing etags
>correctly if we don't describe the process in detail here.
>Which parts of the paragraphs are you more concerned about, and is any of
>the mandatory text going against the conditional request spec?

It's not about going against the conditional req spec, it is about re-specifying (and using normative text for doing so) what is already specified by HTTP, rather than using HTTP as it should be used. Please see BCP 56. Maybe you could use descriptive language instead, if you really want to say more.

Darrel had proposed text:

DM>  WHIP sessions that support ICE restarts MUST return a strong ETag as per [RFC9110] Section 8.8.3 in a successful response to a POST to the WHIP Endpoint.
DM> Successful PATCH requests to WHIP sessions that trigger a restart MUST return an updated ETag.

(This text might be adapted to the paragraph above, to remove the part about ICE restarts, but the main point applies).

Section 4.1.3.

> If the ICE restart request cannot be satisfied by the WHIP session, the resource MUST return an appropriate HTTP error code and MUST NOT terminate the session immediately and keep the existing ICE session.

This is what I was expecting to see above. Describe the additional requirements on top of HTTP (such as expected media type, etc) and "return an appropriate HTTP error code" when not satisfied.

Section 4.2.2

> However, it would be possible for future revisions of this spec to allow more than a single MediaStream or MediaStreamTrack of each media kind, so in order to ensure forward compatibility, if the number of audio and or video MediaStreamTracks or number of MediaStreams are not supported by the WHIP endpoint, it MUST reject the HTTP POST request with a "406 Not Acceptable" error response.

As Darrel noted, and as indicated by BCP 56, defining a mapping between application error and HTTP error code is a bad practice. Instead, you could use finer-grained error information in the response's message content and/or header fields. RFC 9457 provides one way to do so. Also another of Darrel comments: what is the client going to do differently when it processes SDP parsing errors vs SDP semantic errors? Are there actually two code paths?

### References

From idnits:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4122 (Obsoleted by RFC 9562)

### IANA not ok

Holding a DISCUSS for IANA, which was Not OK before the version change.

[Ballot comment]
# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-wish-whip-14
CC @OR13

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-wish-whip-14.txt&submitcheck=True

Thanks to Barry Leiba for the ART ART Review.

## Comments

### Clarity on mandatory to implement authz

```
819   WHIP endpoints and sessions MAY require the HTTP request to be
820   authenticated using an HTTP Authorization header field with a Bearer
821   token as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC6750].  WHIP clients MUST
822   implement this authentication and authorization mechanism and send
823   the HTTP Authorization header field in all HTTP requests sent to
824   either the WHIP endpoint or session except the preflight OPTIONS
825   requests for CORS.
```

Is the intention that WHIP clients always implement support for HTTP Authorization, or only implement it when an endpoint supports it? I think the latter is implied, but this could be clearer.

...

```
836   WHIP endpoints and sessions could perform the authentication and
837   authorization by encoding an authentication token within the URLs for
838   the WHIP endpoints or sessions instead.  In case the WHIP client is
839   not configured to use a bearer token, the HTTP Authorization header
840   field must not be sent in any request.
```

Is there a reason normative language is not used here?

### Link example is 404

```
895   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
896   Content-Type: application/sdp
897   Location: https://whip.example.com/session/id
898   Link: ;
899         rel="urn:ietf:params:whip:ext:example:server-sent-events"
```

https://whip.ietf.org/publications/213786HF/sse is 404, if this is an example, perhaps an example URL would be a better choice?

### Update reference for UUID

```
950       control mechanism for HTTP DELETE requests.  The security
951       considerations for Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) [RFC4122],
952       Section 6 are applicable for generating the WHIP sessions location
953       URL.
```

RFC9562 was recently published, obsoleting RFC4122.

### US-ASCII

```
1046       -  other: Any US-ASCII string that conforms to the URN syntax
```

Is non-US-ASCII really important to exclude here?

Perhaps a citation for US-ASCII could be provided, or simply ASCII could be provided.


### Expert review?

```
1118   encouraged.  The IESG has appointed a designated expert RFC8126 who
1119   will monitor the wish@ietf.org mailing list and review registrations.
```

The IESG has appointed a designated expert, as described in Section 4.5 of RFC8126, ... ?

Later you state that RFCs are required for specific values.

Could this be made clearer by stating that the registry policy is RFC Required (Section 4.7) ?

The guidance to experts implies specification required, with review by the ietf... but that is different than RFC required.

Taken all together, this feels like a mix of expert review, specification required and RFC required.

Ideally, we could just have this be RFC Required, or give a separate section for each of the policies.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Darrel Miller for his HTTPDIR review, to Barry Leiba for the ARTART review, and to Dale Worley for the GENART review of the document. The reviews have improved the document.

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[RFC8126].

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "traditional"; alternatives might be "classic", "classical", "common",
  "conventional", "customary", "fixed", "habitual", "historic",
  "long-established", "popular", "prescribed", "regular", "rooted",
  "time-honored", "universal", "widely used", "widespread"

Found IP blocks or addresses not inside RFC5737/RFC3849 example ranges:
"0.0.0.0" and "127.0.0.1".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Reference [RFC4122] to RFC4122, which was obsoleted by RFC9562 (this may be on
purpose).

Section 3, paragraph 10
> rocess of setting up and tearing down a ingestion session using the WHIP prot
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

Section 4, paragraph 10
> via an HTTP POST Once a session is setup, consent freshness as per [RFC7675]
>                                    ^^^^^
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

Section 4.1, paragraph 1
> P session URL, with a body containing a SDP fragment with media type "applica
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

Section 4.1.3, paragraph 11
> refore all "m=" sections MUST contain an "msid" attribute with the same value
>                                      ^^
Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
e.g. "a sentence", "a university".

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 2
> he WHIP client MUST implement and use full ICE. Trickle ICE and ICE restarts
>                                  ^^^^^^^^
Did you mean the adjective "use the full"?

Section 4.4, paragraph 6
>  is sent. However, this method is not NOT RECOMMENDED to be used by the WHIP
>                                  ^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 4.4, paragraph 9
> quest-Method with "POST" value and the the Access-Control-Request-Headers HTT
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

Section 4.4, paragraph 11
> e supported by all WHIP entities. However this does not preclude the support
>                                  ^^^^^^^
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

Section 4.5.1, paragraph 2
> ession MUST NOT require the usage of any of the extensions. Each protocol ex
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Consider simply using "of" instead.

Section 4.7, paragraph 4
> llocate resources for being able to setup the DTLS/ICE connection. While the
>                                    ^^^^^
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

Section 6.3.1, paragraph 5
> s. WHIP Protocol Extensions URNs have a "ext" type as defined in Section 6.3.
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

Section 6.4.1, paragraph 2
> ive name of the WHIP Protocol Extension extension (e.g., "Sender Side events"
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-wish-whip-14


#GENERIC COMMENTS
#================
## The document is well written and nice to read/digest
## First ever i read about 'ingestion protocol'.

#DETAILED COMMENTS
#=================
##classified as [minor] and [major]

250   As the WHIP protocol only supports the ingestion use case with
251   unidirectional media, the WHIP client SHOULD use "sendonly" attribute
252   in the SDP offer but MAY use the "sendrecv" attribute instead,
253   "inactive" and "recvonly" attributes MUST NOT be used.  The WHIP
254   endpoint MUST use "recvonly" attribute in the SDP answer.

[minor]
Why is the Procedure less strict for the WHIP client (allowing both sendonly/sendrcv) as for the WHIP endpoint (recvonly)?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-13; we had also previously reviewed draft-ietf-wish-whip-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has questions about the third and fourth actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, in the Link Relation Types registry in the Link Relations registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/

a new link relation is to be registered as follows:

Relation Name: ice-server
Description: Conveys the STUN and TURN servers that can be used by an ICE Agent to establish a connection with a peer.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we had previously completed the required Expert Review via a separate request. The authors will also note that new link relations can be can be requested using the [ https://github.com/protocol-registries/link-relations ] or the mailing list defined in [RFC8288].

Second, in the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers registry in the Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for IETF Use registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/params/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Registered Parameter Identifier: whip
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
IANA Registry Reference: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP) URIs registry.

IANA QUESTION --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group? If it needs a new registry group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the registry group and the category have the same name)?

The reference for the new registry will be [ RFC-to-be ] and the registration policy will be Specification Required as defined in RFC8126.

IANA understands that registrations in this new registry consist of:

a URI;
a name;
a description;
a reference;
contact information.

IANA QUESTION --> Are there any initial registrations in the new registry?

Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. New registrations will be requested to be sent using the WHIP Protocol Extension Registration Template in Section 6.4.3 in the current draft to the mailing list at wish@ietf.org.

IANA QUESTION --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group? If it needs a new registry group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the registry group and the category have the same name)?

IANA understands that registrations in this new registry consist of:

a URN;
a reference to a publicly available specification;
a name;
a description; and,
contact information for the registration.

IANA QUESTION --> Are there any initial registrations in the new registry?

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-04-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-wish-whip@ietf.org, nils.ohlmeier@8x8.com, superuser@gmail.com, wish-chairs@ietf.org, wish@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS
WG (wish) to consider the following document: - 'WebRTC-HTTP ingestion
protocol (WHIP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-04-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a simple HTTP-based protocol that will allow
  WebRTC-based ingestion of content into streaming services and/or
  CDNs.

  This document updates RFC 8842 and RFC 8840.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd writeup for WISH-WHIP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group has reached broad agreement on this document and most points.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

A small point of controversy was if support for Trickle ICE should be optional, as it can lead in corner cases to problematic signaling scenarios.

After changes based on Directorate comments were incorporated, a 2nd WGLC was run and comments were resolved.

3. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with work from the RtcWeb working group. Bernard Aboba, an expert on RtcWeb, reviewed the draft and provided his feedback.

4. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft doesn’t define anything new, which requires expert review.

5. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

No YANG models contained.

6. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

7. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

8. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

ART area issues from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/art/wiki/TypicalARTAreaIssues were checked and no issues were identified.

9. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is on the Internet Standard track, because it aims at establishing a new standard for ingesting into streaming services.

10. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Nobody ever mentioned any concerns regarding IPR at any point.

11. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
Dr. Alex Gouaillard is deceased, so we assume his willingness.

12. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 45 characters in excess of 72.

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?

13. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

14. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

Not applicable.

15. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

Not applicable.

16. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

17. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Not applicable.

18. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

IANA consideration section was reviewed and appears to be in order.

19. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

New IANA registry for URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. Instructions for designated expert review point to the wish mailing list. Given that this is a new area with no real established experts this seems to be appropriate.

Shepherd writeup for WISH-WHIP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group has reached broad agreement on this document and most points.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

A small point of controversy was if support for Trickle ICE should be optional, as it can lead in corner cases to problematic signaling scenarios.

After changes based on Directorate comments were incorporated, a 2nd WGLC was run and comments were resolved.

3. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with work from the RtcWeb working group. Bernard Aboba, an expert on RtcWeb, reviewed the draft and provided his feedback.

4. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft doesn’t define anything new, which requires expert review.

5. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

No YANG models contained.

6. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

7. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

8. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

ART area issues from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/art/wiki/TypicalARTAreaIssues were checked and no issues were identified.

9. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is on the Internet Standard track, because it aims at establishing a new standard for ingesting into streaming services.

10. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Nobody ever mentioned any concerns regarding IPR at any point.

11. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
Dr. Alex Gouaillard is deceased, so we assume his willingness.

12. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 45 characters in excess of 72.

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?

13. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

14. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

Not applicable.

15. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

Not applicable.

16. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

17. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Not applicable.

18. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

IANA consideration section was reviewed and appears to be in order.

19. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

New IANA registry for URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. Instructions for designated expert review point to the wish mailing list. Given that this is a new area with no real established experts this seems to be appropriate.

The relation name is 'ice-server', which his reasonably generic and intuitive, but the description is:

> For the WHIP protocol, conveys the STUN and TURN servers that can be used by an ICE Agent to establish a connection with a peer.

... which is very specific to the WHIP protocol.

If you wish to use the generic name, please make the description match; e.g., remove 'For the WHIP protocol'.

Alternatively, if you wish to have a relation type that's specific to the WHIP protocol, I'd suggest something like 'whip-ice-agent'.

Cheers,

Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has questions about two of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the Link Relation Types registry in the Link Relations registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/

a new link relation is to be registered as follows:

Relation Name: ice-server
Description: For the WHIP protocol, conveys the STUN and TURN servers that can be used by an ICE Agent to establish a connection with a peer.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK." The authors will also note that new link relations can be can be requested using the [ https://github.com/protocol-registries/link-relations ] or the mailing list defined in [RFC8288].

Second, in the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers registry in the Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for IETF Use registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/params/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Registered Parameter Identifier: whip
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
IANA Registry Reference: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

Third, a new registry is to be created called the WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP) URIs registry.


IANA QUESTION --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry group? If it needs a new registry group, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the registry group and the category have the same name)?

IANA QUESTION --> Section 6.4.1 refers twice to a mailing list with an address of wish@ietf.org. Should this be whip@ietf.org, or is wish@ietf.org correct?


The reference for the new registry will be [ RFC-to-be ] and the registration policy will be Specification Required as defined in RFC8126.

IANA understands that registrations in this new registry consist of:

a URI;
a name;
a description;
a reference;
contact information.


IANA QUESTION --> Are there any initial registrations in the new registry?


The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-08-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-wish-whip@ietf.org, nils.ohlmeier@8x8.com, superuser@gmail.com, wish-chairs@ietf.org, wish@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (WebRTC-HTTP ingestion protocol (WHIP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS
WG (wish) to consider the following document: - 'WebRTC-HTTP ingestion
protocol (WHIP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-08-08. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a simple HTTP-based protocol that will allow
  WebRTC-based ingestion of content into streaming services and/or
  CDNs.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd writeup for WISH-WHIP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group has reached broad agreement on this document and most points.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

A small point of controversy was if support for Trickle ICE should be optional, as it can lead in corner cases to problematic signaling scenarios.

3. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with work from the RtcWeb working group. Bernard Aboba, an expert on RtcWeb, reviewed the draft and provided his feedback.

4. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft doesn’t define anything new, which requires expert review.

5. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

No YANG models contained.

6. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

7. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

8. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

ART area issues from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/art/wiki/TypicalARTAreaIssues were checked and no issues were identified.

9. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is on the Internet Standard track, because it aims at establishing a new standard for ingesting into streaming services.

10. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Nobody ever mentioned any concerns regarding IPR at any point.

11. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
Dr. Alex Gouaillard is deceased, so we assume his willingness.

12. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 45 characters in excess of 72.

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?

13. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

14. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

Not applicable.

15. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

Not applicable.

16. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

17. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Not applicable.

18. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

IANA consideration section was reviewed and appears to be in order.

19. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

New IANA registry for URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. Instructions for designated expert review point to the wish mailing list. Given that this is a new area with no real established experts this seems to be appropriate.

Shepherd writeup for WISH-WHIP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-wish-whip/

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The working group has reached broad agreement on this document and most points.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

A small point of controversy was if support for Trickle ICE should be optional, as it can lead in corner cases to problematic signaling scenarios.

3. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

This document closely interacts with work from the RtcWeb working group. Bernard Aboba, an expert on RtcWeb, reviewed the draft and provided his feedback.

4. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft doesn’t define anything new, which requires expert review.

5. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

No YANG models contained.

6. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

7. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes

8. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

ART area issues from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/art/wiki/TypicalARTAreaIssues were checked and no issues were identified.

9. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is on the Internet Standard track, because it aims at establishing a new standard for ingesting into streaming services.

10. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Nobody ever mentioned any concerns regarding IPR at any point.

11. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.
Dr. Alex Gouaillard is deceased, so we assume his willingness.

12. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 45 characters in excess of 72.

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

-- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too?

13. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

No

14. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

Not applicable.

15. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

Not applicable.

16. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

17. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Not applicable.

18. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

IANA consideration section was reviewed and appears to be in order.

19. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

New IANA registry for URN Sub-namespace for WHIP. Instructions for designated expert review point to the wish mailing list. Given that this is a new area with no real established experts this seems to be appropriate.