Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split

Ted,

I think the proposed split is well in line with the Internet 
Architecture principle, "Modularity is always good."

It is well thought through.

Igor

On 6/17/2011 12:30 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 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 mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb