Last Call Review of draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02
review-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02-genart-lc-halpern-2022-03-27-00
Request | Review of | draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2022-04-05 | |
Requested | 2022-03-15 | |
Authors | Justin Uberti , Cullen Fluffy Jennings , Eric Rescorla | |
I-D last updated | 2022-03-27 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Joel M. Halpern
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Yaron Sheffer (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Qin Wu (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Joel M. Halpern |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/i_745aF4T6deyFdN6ocUBuddfg8 | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2022-03-27 |
review-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-02-genart-lc-halpern-2022-03-27-00
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 But it is hard to tell, and the only formal reference is a vague citation in the introduction to an outdated W3C specification.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. Nits/editorial comments: