IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 17 June 2011 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 2DA7711E808F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 cJJYCfFiK0Ml for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049D011E8085 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5H5LIeS023755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:21:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4DFAE451.9030105@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:21:21 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@ipinfusion.com>
References: <BANLkTinu402NoPovU6nDWAKKUBKfbJyk3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinu402NoPovU6nDWAKKUBKfbJyk3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 05:21:25 -0000

On 6/16/2011 9:30 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 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.


If someone wants to implement the simplest, core capability that is useful 
within this context of service, how many docs are they going to have to read?

Which ones? How long before they will be written?

For classic Web, I think it is still just 2.  Same for email.

My question is motivated by the usual concern about barriers to adoption that 
can stymie new services.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email