Transports for WebRTC
RFC 8835
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2021-01-18
|
17 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8835, changed abstract to 'This document describes the data transport protocols used by Web Real-Time … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8835, changed abstract to 'This document describes the data transport protocols used by Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC), including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays, and NAT boxes.', changed pages to 13, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2021-01-18, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2021-01-18
|
17 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2020-12-03
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8835">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2020-11-05
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8835">AUTH48</a> from AUTH48-DONE |
|
2020-06-25
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8835">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2020-06-01
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8835">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2020-03-16
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
|
2019-08-25
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
|
2019-08-15
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
|
2016-11-12
|
17 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-10-31
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2016-10-31
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
|
2016-10-28
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2016-10-28
|
17 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2016-10-27
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2016-10-27
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2016-10-27
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2016-10-27
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-10-27
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-10-27
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-10-26
|
17 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17.txt |
|
2016-10-26
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2016-10-26
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> |
|
2016-10-26
|
16 | Harald Alvestrand | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-10-04
|
16 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-16.txt |
|
2016-10-04
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2016-10-04
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> |
|
2016-10-04
|
15 | Harald Alvestrand | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-08-08
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-08-04
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2016-08-04
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Thanks for updating! Leaving it to this comment: Based on the TSV review I agree that this document (named "Transports for WebRTC") should … [Ballot comment] Thanks for updating! Leaving it to this comment: Based on the TSV review I agree that this document (named "Transports for WebRTC") should say more about congestion control. The TSV reviewer (Thanks Allison!) proposes to refer draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17 and draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09. I would even appreciate to have a sentence that says that congestion control and a circuit breaker is mandated in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26. |
|
2016-08-04
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2016-08-04
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the issues from my DISCUSS in version 15. I am clearing. |
|
2016-08-04
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
|
2016-08-04
|
15 | Harald Alvestrand | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2016-08-04
|
15 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-15.txt |
|
2016-08-04
|
14 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot discuss] Thanks, I think this is a very useful and well written document. Sorry for my late discuss but I don't think this is … [Ballot discuss] Thanks, I think this is a very useful and well written document. Sorry for my late discuss but I don't think this is anything complicated to address. Based on the TSV review I agree that this document should say more about congestion control. While the TSV reviewer (Thanks Allison!) only proposes to refer draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17 and draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09, I would even prefer to have a normative sentence that says that congestion control MUST be implemented for all traffic flows. Please also provide the update on DSCP black-holing (in the middle of a flow) as mentioned by David Black. |
|
2016-08-04
|
14 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to Discuss from No Record |
|
2016-08-04
|
14 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2016-08-03
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I had the dame question as Stephen on why SSL instead of TLS, so thanks for clearing that up in the next revision. |
|
2016-08-03
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2016-08-03
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2016-08-03
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] I'd like to briefly chat about one aspect of this... Section 3.4: Allowing configuration of STUN/TURN servers from JS makes it easier for … [Ballot discuss] I'd like to briefly chat about one aspect of this... Section 3.4: Allowing configuration of STUN/TURN servers from JS makes it easier for a calling server to track a user's call meta-data, if the JS supplied configuration is e.g. always preferred. Shouldn't a browser prefer locally configured servers if those exist and can be used? Or are there other things to be said about which STUN/TURN servers to use when there are multiple choices? (Apologies if this is handled by ICE already, I forget;-) |
|
2016-08-03
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - 3.1: Would "TURN/TLS" not be better than "TURN/SSL"? - 3.2: Would s/or its TURN server/or the peer's TURN server/ be better? |
|
2016-08-03
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2016-08-03
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I am glad this work is being completed. |
|
2016-08-03
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though. In Section … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though. In Section 3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses, the draft states " The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent addresses." While this is technically true, this is only the seventh rule in an ordered list of eight rules. e.g. A valid permanent address would be preferred over a deprecated temporary address based on Rule 3. If a host had only a valid permanent address and a deprecated temporary address, the mechanism specified in the draft would result in no addresses being made available, whereas the permanent address would have been an acceptable choice using RFC6724. So, it is not entirely clear to me what the draft is trying to accomplish. It says " However, this rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope. This is therefore clarified as follows:" What rule is this talking about when it says "this rule"? Similarly, it also says "When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host..." but it is not clear what "client" the draft is referring to. I think if you can clarify what you want to achieve with the address selection we can work together on some replacement text. |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot discuss text updated for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though. In Section … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though. In Section 3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses, the draft states " The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent addresses." While this is technically true, this is only the seventh rule in an ordered list of eight rules. e.g. A valid permanent address would be preferred over a deprecated temporary address based on Rule 3. If a host had only a valid permanent address and a deprecated temporary address, the mechanism specified in the draft would result in no addresses being made available, whereas the permanent address would have been an acceptable choice using RFC6724. So, it is not entirely clear to me what the draft is trying to accomplish. It says " However, this rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope. This is therefore clarified as follows:" What rule is this talking about when it says "this rule"? Similarly, it also says "When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host..." but it is not clear what "client" the draft is referring to. I think if you can clarify what you want to achieve we can work together on some replacement text. |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot discuss text updated for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though. In Section … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though. In Section 3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses, the draft states " The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent addresses." While this is technically true, this is only the seventh rule in an ordered list of eight rules. e.g. A valid permanent address would be preferred over a deprecated temporary address based on Rule 3. If a host had only a valid permanent address and a deprecated temporary address, the mechanism specified in the draft would result in no addresses being made available, whereas the permanent address would have been an acceptable choice using RFC6724. So, it is not entirely clear to me what the draft is trying to accomplish. It says " However, this rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope. This is therefore clarified as follows:" What rule is this talking about when it says "this rule"? Similarly, it also says "When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host..." but it is not clear what "client" the draft is referring to. |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I noted that some comments that I agreed with have appeared during Last Call, and hope they'll be reflected in a -15. Beyond … [Ballot comment] I noted that some comments that I agreed with have appeared during Last Call, and hope they'll be reflected in a -15. Beyond that, I had a few comments of my own, but wanted to thank the working group for producing very clear and helpful transport guidance. In this text If some of the temporary IPv6 addresses, but not all, are marked deprecated, the client SHOULD discard the deprecated addresses. I would find some explanation of why this is a SHOULD to be helpful ("if some of the addresses are deprecated, and you could discard them because you still have addresses that are not marked deprecated, why would you not discard the deprecated addresses?"). In this text In order to deal with firewalls that block all UDP traffic, the mode of TURN that uses TCP between the client and the server MUST be supported, and the mode of TURN that uses TLS over TCP between the client and the server MUST be supported. See [RFC5766] section 2.1 for details. I think MUST for both TCP and TLS over TCP is still a good requirement, but I note that RFC 5766 significantly predates RFC 7258, and wonder if it's worth mentioning the tradeoffs in selecting which to use in a pervasively monitored Internet, with RFC 7258 as a reference (RFC 5766 couldn't do that, of course). In this text For data transport over the WebRTC data channel [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], WebRTC implementations MUST support SCTP over DTLS over ICE. This encapsulation is specified in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps seems to call this "SCTP over DTLS over ICE/UDP". That would be clearer to me. I agree with There exist a number of schemes for achieving quality of service that do not depend solely on DSCP code points. Some of these schemes depend on classifying the traffic into flows based on 5-tuple (source address, source port, protocol, destination address, destination port) or 6-tuple (5-tuple + DSCP code point). Under differing conditions, it may therefore make sense for a sending application to choose any of the configurations: and the text that follows it, but I'm not understanding how a sending application would know which configuration to choose, if we're still talking about downloaded Javascript on an arbitrary browser instance (is that still accurate? If not, my apologies). Is the sending application just guessing/applying heuristics, or is there any guidance (or a reference to guidance) you can provide? |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2016-08-02
|
14 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Record from No Objection |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this. It's a well written document that really helps bring together the rather fragmented specifications that an implementor needs to … [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this. It's a well written document that really helps bring together the rather fragmented specifications that an implementor needs to understand. I have one minor and a few editorial comments: Minor Comments: - 4.2, 2nd to last paragraph:"Sending data over multiple 5-tuples is not supported." I am confused by this, since the last few paragraphs required support for a separate 5-tuple per media stream. That seems to be a form of sending data over multiple 5-tuples. Does this mean to distinguish "data" from "media", maybe in the in the sense of "data-channels"? - Informative References: Please consider whether the references to rtcweb-overview, RFC 4595, and RFC 7656 should be normative references. They are cited for definition of terms used in this document; if those definitions are needed to fully understand this document, they should be normative. (IMHO, these are borderline). Editorial Comments: - Please expand TURN, SSL, and ICE on first mention. - 3.4, 5th paragraph from end: "using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay" I _think_ this means the use of TCP on the hop between the endpoint and the relay and not on other hops, but some may read it as the use of TCP but not other protocols on that hop. - 4.2: There are a few instances of text of the form of "... packets...use a single DSCP code point", which I think would be more clear with s/a single/the same. |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-08-01
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2016-07-21
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: David Mandelberg. |
|
2016-07-18
|
14 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
|
2016-07-18
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-07-18
|
14 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
|
2016-07-14
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg |
|
2016-07-14
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg |
|
2016-07-12
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alissa@cooperw.in, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alissa@cooperw.in, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Extended Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt> (Transports for WebRTC) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document: - 'Transports for WebRTC' <draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt> 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-01. 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 the data transport protocols used by WebRTC, including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2016-07-12
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2016-07-12
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-07-11
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
|
2016-07-11
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
|
2016-07-08
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
|
2016-07-08
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-08-04 |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. This document specifies normative requirements for WebRTC implementations. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC, including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes. Working Group Summary Nothing particularly controversial in this spec. It is largely just a pointer to other specifications saying if you do WebRTC, then you need to what RFC X,Y, and Z says. Based on the WGLC comments, the chairs suggest adding an RFC Ed note to include an informative reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-return however there is not WG consensus to make this a MUST or SHOULD implement. (Cleary nothing forbids implementing it so it is already an MAY implement) Document Quality Much of this is implemented in chrome and firefox which share a significant amount of code with respect to this so some parts of it has 2 implementations, some parts 1, and some none. Personnel Cullen Jennings is the document shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. Reviewed widely on list. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. NA (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Strong (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No issues (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). NA (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. NA |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alissa@cooperw.in, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alissa@cooperw.in, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt> (Transports for WebRTC) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document: - 'Transports for WebRTC' <draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt> 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-07-21. 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 the data transport protocols used by WebRTC, including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-07-07
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard, (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC, including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes. Working Group Summary Nothing particularly controversial in this spec. It is largely just a pointer to other specifications saying if you do WebRTC, then you need to what RFC X,Y, and Z says. Based on the WGLC comments, the chairs suggest adding an RFC Ed note to include an informative reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-return however there is not WG consensus to make this a MUST or SHOULD implement. (Cleary nothing forbids implementing it so it is already an MAY implement) Document Quality Much of this is implemented in chrome and firefox which share a significant amount of code with respect to this so some parts of it has 2 implementations, some parts 1, and some none. Personnel Cullen Jennings is shepherd. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. Reviewed widely on list. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. NA (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Strong (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No issues (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). NA (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. NA |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Sean Turner | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2016-06-23
|
14 | Sean Turner | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2016-06-09
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | this comment is optional |
|
2016-06-09
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2016-06-08
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-06-08
|
14 | Cullen Jennings | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-06-07
|
14 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt |
|
2016-06-06
|
13 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-13.txt |
|
2016-03-21
|
12 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-12.txt |
|
2016-01-28
|
11 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11.txt |
|
2015-10-19
|
10 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-10.txt |
|
2015-07-06
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-09.txt |
|
2015-02-27
|
08 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-08.txt |
|
2014-10-22
|
07 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-07.txt |
|
2014-08-13
|
06 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-06.txt |
|
2014-06-11
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-05.txt |
|
2014-04-25
|
04 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-04.txt |
|
2014-03-31
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-03.txt |
|
2014-01-22
|
02 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-02.txt |
|
2014-01-10
|
01 | Magnus Westerlund | Document shepherd changed to Cullen Jennings |
|
2013-09-03
|
01 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01.txt |
|
2013-08-19
|
00 | Harald Alvestrand | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt |