Re: status of webrtc-quic

[this message was found hanging in an unsent draft a week later]

Den 31. aug. 2018 02:45, skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
> Harald, with all due respect, that's a weak reply.
> 
> Imagine what would happen at another SDO if something like this
> occurred. For example, imagine if at the IETF I mistakenly published an
> Internet-Draft as draft-ietf-rtcweb-foo instead of draft-saintandre-foo
> and the RTCWEB chairs said "we're likely to adopt it anyway, so don't
> bother fixing it".

Has actually happened a number of times in the past; this is why -00 WG
drafts required more approval in the datatracker.

> That would rightly be perceived as a not-small
> process violation for many reasons (IPR compliance, perception of bias,
> etc.).
> 
> How many cycles are we talking about to correct this oversight and do
> the right thing? Shall I submit a PR to ease the burden on the authors?

If you understand the ReSpec boilerplate mechanisms well enough to
submit a PR, you are most welcome to.

> Peter
> 
> On 8/30/18 8:03 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> The Stockholm interim decided that it wanted more information about the
>> use cases that raise the questions for which QUIC may be the answer.
>>
>> My personal take is that we're likely to adopt it once we've gotten our
>> act together on use cases (we need a QUIC API, and this looks like a
>> good start), so my willingness to spend cycles on fixing template issues
>> is fairly limited.
>>
>>
>> On 08/29/2018 11:18 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> The QUIC API for WebRTC [0] asserts it is an Editor's Draft, which is a
>>> spec status [1] reserved for official working group documents. However,
>>> as far as I can see, this work item is not listed in the WG charter [2],
>>> a call for adoption has not yet been issued on this mailing list, and
>>> the summary of decisions from the Stockholm interim [3] indicates that
>>> we did not have consensus to adopt.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this spec be "unofficial" at this point?
>>>
>>> And should we have a web platform test in place [4] for something that's
>>> unofficial?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> [0] https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-quic/
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/specStatus
>>>
>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/07/webrtc-charter.html
>>>
>>> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2018Jun/0191.html
>>>
>>> [4]
>>> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/297722ededba1c80e2a8768100129af300f67dbf/webrtc/RTCQuicTransport.https.html
>>>
>>
>