Re: [rtcweb] WGLC: draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 09 December 2016 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 AD6A2129884 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 06:37:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JhixyJCUGHXa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 06:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B67751297EA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 06:35:19 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-45bff70000005d1c-ba-584ac1249ebd
Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.27]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 00.8F.23836.421CA485; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:35:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.319.2; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:35:16 +0100
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4DE32636-8749-43BD-A910-C03FFC358095@sn3rd.com>
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <79d79c67-6ab7-0e5a-c5e1-8ef2bfa817c4@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 15:35:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DE32636-8749-43BD-A910-C03FFC358095@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7tK7aQa8Ig8+sFmv/tbNbXFnVyOzA 5LFkyU8mj4MHGQOYorhsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyDq5ayFRwRLhiw9pZbA2MF/m7GDk5JARMJNb8 OsrWxcjFISSwjlGio3s6C4SzjFHi8tqJ7CBVwgJmEl8mXWUBsUUEjCU+nbnL2MXIAVRkIzH/ oQ5ImE3AQuLmj0Y2EJtXwF5ix7IbrCA2i4CKxLQz/xlBbFGBGIklx+exQNQISpyc+QTM5hSw ldjT8IkJZCQzUO+DrWUgYWYBeYnmrbOZQWwhAW2JhqYO1gmM/LOQdM9C6JiFpGMBI/MqRtHi 1OLi3HQjI73Uoszk4uL8PL281JJNjMCwO7jlt9UOxoPPHQ8xCnAwKvHwFpR6RgixJpYVV+Ye YpTgYFYS4Y3c5xUhxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iFGag0VJnNds5f1wIYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimCwT B6dUA2N3/rv3a7k7g9ZskdXauWSPo3AWW2V5bezZ1s0LfdxeBW/qml5vEDFn+3qPHQbZs9Zp PN8re3jBUcN62bu7f547K94of8H0iN5VDZ3fxkc/5fQe+JbtnZbZoK/u+OpobMIREck770yW ObvkVwSXlkWsjrNj2lX9sD7v8SbO/dHNjanCkUeMpZVYijMSDbWYi4oTAUNHiAA3AgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/UO_qqFo6zZR9ZCyAmiYvQcPLeN8>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC: draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 09 Dec 2016 14:37:13 -0000

Hi,

I have reviewed the overview document and have the following comments:

1. Section 1:

    As the available bandwidth has increased, and as processors an other
    hardware has become ever faster, the barriers to participation have
    decreased, and it has become possible to deliver a satisfactory
    experience on commonly available computing hardware.


"processors an other" i guess it should say "and"

2. Section 2.2:

    o  A Javascript API specification, done in the W3C
       [W3C.WD-webrtc-20120209][W3C.WD-mediacapture-streams-20120628]


"A"? Shouldn't this say a "A set of Javascript API specifications, ..." 
as there are multiple APIs? I know such reformulation would impact the 
next couple of paragraphs at least. But, maybe some other way of 
acknowledging the fact that there are multiple API parts?

3. Section 2.2:

"and the Javascript API defined above."

I see a issue with pointing to the specific API specs above. This as if 
there are other API relatizations defined, even if compatible they are 
not considered WebRTC Browser. I would suggest, simply drop "defined 
above".

4. On the completeness of the specification

Looking at the current set of RTCWeb WG documents, one sees that there 
are some that are not referenced:

draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-04
draft-ietf-rtcweb-fec-04 	
draft-ietf-rtcweb-ip-handling-02

The above are referenced by mentioned documents

draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp-02

Is not referenced by any document currently. Thus the question is if one 
needs to include a reference in some suitable place for this document, 
or if it is fine as a stand alone one. Considering that it is an 
informational explanation document, it may not need to be included, but 
I have to raise the question if it should be included at least as an 
informational reference in Overview, or somewhere else?


Conclusion: I think this document is ready for publication request when 
the above issues has been considered.


Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------