Re: [rtcweb] Preparing for publication request of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements
Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2014 20:57 UTC
Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E26F1AE240 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:57:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3N6SIpgC5-q3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34B51AE0D5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:57:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id cc10so4700639wib.16 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:57:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fVATuU+0BrQGOEGUtdSj8hdHWm7qAmlTy8i4TCpKIvU=; b=jbGP3KysdyEI4rKh6vSCxB6HwMT40L89uP/ttkPLVF8gx0KOW2EWdLoIpVLO/4hG5C wUQjm4f1m6EQBc3K/btKJr03pY16v1uqnLtvq/WkT/B1EmC+CpuoY0Ci0zAQHYISsd4P uVFK65K1SkIhGg1pasLfR3sfpE0+f/cmChr+4ysPAqdiN2B4APMrqHfCW+QLPzpsOQ00 wHX1MFRMsgtD6pbSjHnuPILytrL6otChgPs1m+lEYs1ifyyqkmjKh2rTzORQOAOiDmFV 8T1cZdhq0OvMRRklocoRhYmtlYAEqCMUgvURct5ANHYd3BAifm6Tk4PLqkN0m8AMRI90 U6kg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.182.226 with SMTP id eh2mr4275176wic.36.1389819426457; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.172.9 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:57:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52D66687.9060204@ericsson.com>
References: <52D66687.9060204@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:57:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN5N5VQafUv_RXC7d0D22y7bjxMPTRjVXJJYujPF2xhaYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e016347f0374c0a04f0088d4d"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Preparing for publication request of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:57:21 -0000
I had thought I had previously done a detailed review of this doc, but I can't find it to know whether changes suggested have been incorporated. So, I have re-reviewed the document and I think it's almost ready to progress. I think it needs some editorial clarifications and nits to be fixed as summarized below. Note, I did not review the appendix. Regards, Mary. In general, I still find the style of this document very difficult to grok since the requirements are not grouped in categories and one has to keep switching back and forth in the document to match requirements to use cases. Questions/Comments for clarification: ---------------------------------------------------- 1) Section 1, 1st paragraph, last sentence. It's not clear to me that "e.g., a telephone" is meaningful. I don't think you're intending to interworking with a legacy PSTN connected black phone. So, it might be more accurate to say " e.g., a mobile phone or a SIP UA". 2) Section 3.3.1.1. Next to last paragraph. I'm not sure what you mean by different "makes". I think you mean different types of devices (e.g., mobile, SIP UA, etc. ). That all said, I don't think that's not so relevant. I think simply stating different OSs and different browsers is sufficient. 3) Section 3.3.6.1. It's not at all clear to me why this requirement is considered specific to WebRTC. I would think the access network changes should be transparent to WebRTC. Certainly, the device needs to know what's happening, but I think whether this works is entirely based on the internals of the device and the specific access network technology, and not WebRTC application. 4) Section 3.3.10.1. Why is F24 not considered an additional requirement here? Also, do you not need to have a statement as to what other use case is the basis for this one such that the core requirements are reference? 5) Section 3.3.11.1, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. I don't understand what this is trying to say. What is meant by "enhance intelligibility"? And, what is meant by "pans the audio from different participants differently when rendering the audio". [As an aside, I will note that some of the CLUE use cases likely encompass what you are trying to communicate here in this requirements (including subsequent paragraphs and the last "Note:"), so you may want to look at those and use similar terminology and concepts, that CLUE spent a lot of time developing. ] 6) Section 3.4. I would expect F27 to be referenced by at least one of these use cases. 7) Section 4.2. - General: I am a bit confused as there are requirements in this section that aren't referenced in section 3, including F19, F23, and F27 . Perhaps, that's because there are some missing references in section 3 (see item 7)? If not, then why are they there. At a minimum you should add a sentence to section 4.1 indicating that not all the requirements are derived from the use cases (contrary to what is currently stated). - What's the difference between F24 and F34? - F30. I had to read this several times to understand it due to structure. I would suggest changing as follows: OLD: F30 The browser must be able to use the screen (or a specific area of the screen) or what a certain application displays on the screen to generate streams. NEW: F30 The browser must be able to generate streams using the entire user display, a specific area of the user's display or the information being displayed by a specific application. On this one, I also think it would be good to clarify what type of stream - are you talking about using protocol to share content or or is this just a video stream? Or would you have two separate requirement to cover both of these? - F32. I can't quite grok this one. Maybe you are trying to say something like the following? OLD: F32 There browser must support that STUN and TURN servers to use are supplied by other entities than via the web application (i.e. the network provider). NEW: F32 The browser must support the use of STUN and TURN servers that are supplied by entities other than the web application (i.e. the network provider). 8) Section 7. I have mixed feelings about leaving this list with URLs in the document. I think it's good to highlight the use cases that weren't incorporated and why they weren't. I think it would add a lot more value to provide a concise summary of the reasons they weren't added than just including links, in particular, since we usually don't like to publish RFCs with links. Nits: ------ 1) Section 1, 1st paragraph, last sentence, "at least one of the end-user client" -> "at least one of the end-user clients" 2) Section 3.2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: - "retrives" -> "retrieves" - add a section reference for "Simple Video Communication Service" 3) Section 3.2. , next to last sentence. "retrieved from" -> "derived from" 4) Section 3.3.5.1, 3rd paragraph, - 1st sentence. "session" - "session" - 2nd sentence. "straddle the boundary between the internal network and external." -> "straddles the boundary between the internal and external networks. 5) Section 3.3.5.1, 4th paragraph. "they still want to have the traffic to stay" -> "they still want the traffic to say" 6) Section 3.3.61. 1st paragraph. I'm not sure why this ends with ":" 7) Section 3.3.6.1, 2nd paragraph. "device used by one of the users have several" -> "device used by one of the users has several" 8) Section 3.3.11.1, 1st para, 1st sentence. "In this use case is the Simple..." -> "In this use case, the Simple...." 9) Section 3.3.11.1 3rd from last paragraph. "use experience" -> "user experience" 10) Section 3.4.3.1, 2nd paragraph. "participant send" -> "participant sends" 11) Section 4.2: - F35. "of that streams" -> "that streams" On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Magnus Westerlund < magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote: > WG, > > This is related to: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements/ > > We have held WG last call and there has been updates to the document to > resolve the WG last call comments. It is now time to finish up this > document and request publication of it. I am the document shepherd for > this document and will prepare my write-up of the document and in that > process do the necessary reviews. > > I also asked the WG for input on two open issues that needs to be closed > prior to publication request. So please review these and provide your > input on them. > > This is your chance to verify that your comments has been addressed in > the revision. Please provide any feedback on the document within the > next week, i.e. no later than the 22 Feb. > > Note, that I will require that the WG approves of any changes in this > state, rather than any silence is approval model. So if you want some > change to go into the document at this stage there need to (rough) > consensus to introduce it and clearly shown support. > > > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- [rtcweb] Preparing for publication request of dra… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Preparing for publication request of… Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Preparing for publication request of… Magnus Westerlund