Re: Reducing normative dependencies

Den 09. des. 2014 13:18, skrev Dominique Hazael-Massieux:
> Le samedi 06 décembre 2014 à 17:21 +0100, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
>>> I don't find this use case particularly compelling.  An informative
>>> reference would be enough to address the discovery issue.
>>
>> I agree for the discovery case.
>>
>> From a W3C-process standpoint, an informative reference from PC to Stats
>> is the easiest to manage.
>>
>> For the case of other specs (inside or outside the W3C) choosing what
>> they have normative references to when (if) they say "as part of
>> conforming to this spec, you have to implement WebRTC", I'm unsure.
>>
>> I'd like to hear what others think.
> 
> If we know other specs that need to reference "WebRTC" conformance, and
> if we know that this conformance to be meaningful need to include stats,
> then I suggest we should have a different spec that normatively
> references all the pieces that would constitute such a conformance
> profile.


It's no secret what the main customer is:

draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview

Adding a normative link to -stats there may be "no big deal".

> 
> But given that browsers don't usually implement stuff based on what is
> mandated in an abstract spec but based on their own analysis of their
> market, and given that our specs are targeted at browsers, I'm
> personally doubtful this is a useful exercice — most previous examples
> in this space have failed to achieve this.
> 
> Given that from a pure implementability perspective (the one that I
> think matters when it comes to normative references), one can obviously
> implement the stuff in webrtc-pc without implementing the stuff in
> webrtc-stats, I concur that an informative reference from the former to
> the latter is all we need, and that we should do so as we move the
> getStats() partial interface to webrtc-stats.
> 
> Dom
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 15:45:12 UTC