[rtcweb] Call for comment on document split
Ted Hardie <hardie@ipinfusion.com> Fri, 17 June 2011 04:30 UTC
Return-Path: <tedh@ipinfusion.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3534E11E8153 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwSN+M2fo0Bx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B109711E8080 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so2136769vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.94.239 with SMTP id df15mr2245334vdb.254.1308285050848; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.159.132 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:30:50 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinu402NoPovU6nDWAKKUBKfbJyk3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <hardie@ipinfusion.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307f3ac6b886e704a5e0d983"
Subject: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:34:59 -0000
Hi Folks, In order to allow folks time to submit draft-ietf-rtcweb versions in time for the upcoming 00 deadline, the chairs would like to first outline our theory of the document splits to meet our chartered milestones (to refresh you self on them: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charter/) in the August time frame. We'd like to have one document which describes the use cases. We'd like to have one document that gives a system overview and outlines the overall model. We'd like to have one document that describes the privacy and security model. We'd like to have one document that describes the connectivity model (for NAT traversal etc.). Later documents will be: signaling and negotiation methods, media transports, datagram transport for non-media data, and one or more documents on media processing and codecs. Note that this set of "documents we'd like" is missing one that says "requirements". Discussion among the chairs has come to consensus that we have at least three different kinds of requirements being discussed and the the use of the term "requirement" is hindering both our internal discussion and the balance of work between us and the W3C at the moment. So, we'd like to have the focus be on what the parts of the system *do* within the context of a system overview, rather than on a discussion of requirements or, even worse, a meta discussion of what the word "requirements" means in particular contexts. If folks our okay with this document set, the chairs will then appoint editors from among those who have contributed text so far. This may mean that the initial -00 versions have a strong resemblance to the individual submissions they'd already presented; it also may not. We'd like to remind everyone that taking on the role of document editor in an IETF context means accepting the responsibility to make the document reflect the consensus of the group. If a WG -00 is missing items or needs revision to meet the needs of the group, in other words, that's normal--send text. Ted, Magnus, and Cullen
- [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Dave CROCKER
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Kundan Singh
- Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split Marc Petit-Huguenin