[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