[rtcweb] RTCWEB milestones (was: Protesting the QoS document decision)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 21 December 2013 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 A7DF31AE181 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:55:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 XkTyYSAta2hM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495301AE171 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBL0tMsD003148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:55:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1387587329; bh=Atd5GKxQj69BKGjeWTeSGqUeT6GKIsxwwSkY8YJECmo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=LX6CN0HdgH2YvWIXDLONqrNumtjKjc6ZnOT7fcDUYirScyPkHY16IdyVfLUAzQbQU rnC0uSEyZfdgpwt8CYpe1su3nkx7n747t1Pfm50qkps38K/fHUYBKJxPegPY/cZ9rk ObC6hv5KiCEprftKuoVeBSZNPgn9bFitIylQwIrA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1387587329; i=@resistor.net; bh=Atd5GKxQj69BKGjeWTeSGqUeT6GKIsxwwSkY8YJECmo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ArNB8f/w2XbusDzcaik7m/xJC35mJkrD7vXDSK20kwI2XjeXQ4RTxjKBmqsfj86r+ OwVusS2x3V2QtBXUdQcA4L/H774ThxK6pCvlk2xoBciy/2S0rotRmrsyrUF8QPMivD a95PQrYWpW0UjovCzfxiwP4mjarWyUpCJ8rnS54E=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131220163235.0b517a38@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:55:12 -0800
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <52B481A9.6010008@dcrocker.net>
References: <5283DF61.9060807@alvestrand.no> <52B31AF0.60107@ericsson.com> <52B32AE7.1080100@dcrocker.net> <52B40A1E.6030308@ericsson.com> <52B481A9.6010008@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: [rtcweb] RTCWEB milestones (was: Protesting the QoS document decision)
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: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 00:55:37 -0000

Hello,
At 09:43 20-12-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>That's not what you've got in rtcweb.  Quite the opposite.  Just 
>look at the wg statistics.  Lots of documents.  1.5 years.  Nothing 
>published. Blocked on a decision about a component.   I also hear 
>continuing reports of mutual suspicion amongst participants.

 From the RTCWEB minutes:

   The milestones were quickly reviewed, primarily noting that we are late with
   everything.  The WG was asked if they think it is a reasonable 
goal to finish
   all the core documents before the end of 2014.  This will be a challenge and
   people need to help by actually reviewing the documents and send comments.

   The dependencies was also reviewed.  Authors, consider if our normative
   references make sense. Are they really needed?  Waiting on references slows
   down publication.  WG please contribute to finish up these references also."

Currently, the goals and milestones are as follows:

   Oct 2012 - Send Security and Privacy Problem Statement
     (draft-ietf-rtcweb-security) to IESG for publication as Informational

   Oct 2012 - Complete Overview (and hold for dependency resolution)
     (draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview)

   Oct 2012 - Send Use Cases document 
(draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements)
    to IESG for publication as Informational

   Jan 2013 - Send Media Transport (draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage) to IESG for
     publication as Proposed Standard

   Jan 2013 - Send Security Solution (draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch) to IESG
    for publication as Proposed Standard

   Jan 2013 - Send Signalling Negotiation and NAT Traversal 
(draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep)
     to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard

   Jan 2013 - Audio Processing and Audio Codecs 
(draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio) to IESG
     for publication as Proposed Standard

   Jan 2013 - Video Processing and Video Codecs 
(draft-ietf-rtcweb-video) to IESG
     for publication as Proposed StandardVideo Processing and Video Codecs
    (draft-ietf-rtcweb-video) to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard

   May 2013 - Send Quality of Service markings of RTCWeb packets
    (draft- ietf-rtcweb-qos) to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard

   Mar 2014 - Send STUN Usage for Consent Freshness to IESG for publication
     as proposed standard

   May 2103 - Send Data Stream Transport for non-media data
     (draft-ietf- rtcweb-data-channel) to IESG for publication as 
Proposed Standard

The "2103" could be a typo or RTCWEB could have been chartered for a 
100 years. :-)

Could the milestones be updated?  It might help to provide a sense of 
what the goals are and to assess whether the goals are being met.

Regards,
-sm