Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Wed, 26 October 2011 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.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 4AE6A21F84FB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id El2xJw762zv4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC6221F84F9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.22) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:11:34 -0400
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.232]) by Mail2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.157]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:11:35 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "<igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>" <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology
Thread-Index: AQHMlBt1EKECh+8lQkm6uqfqXW9quA==
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:11:33 +0000
Message-ID: <DDB18237-60B7-41B2-A57E-DD9E812E9B9A@acmepacket.com>
References: <AAB480AA-8F03-4C25-8A7C-55B88D057C24@acmepacket.com> <42322A10-14A7-4600-820D-7612A1B12592@cisco.com> <3747C7CB-C039-4D15-A46C-8FDB9A47AF3A@acmepacket.com> <DD0E14D2-252F-442B-9AFC-8ECD6704794B@cisco.com> <4EA8466D.9090808@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EA8466D.9090808@alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.0.0.30]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <856B358777C31241A0E79604399A6BB7@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology
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: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:11:36 -0000

On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Igor Faynberg wrote:

> Having passed this milestone, maybe it is time to start a Terminology RFC?

I propose we do that in draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview, which already has a terminology section, but needs the new terminology added.
I think people would naturally gravitate to reading an "Overview" document first, so having the terminology within it makes sense methinks.

-hadriel