Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

High level points:

- Thanks for the specific review points!

- Agreement that this probably shouldn't be published until the 
references are.
The point of a Last Call at this point is (at least I think of it that 
way) that any proposal for a substantive change in the document after a 
concluded Last Call is treated as reopening a closed issue, rather than 
continuing an open debate on which no conclusion has been drawn.

Clarifications are, of course, always in order.

On 01/30/2013 01:23 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05 claims that
> it is an "overview" in title and abstract, but it also references RFC
> 2119 and uses RFC 2119 keywords and has normative references making the
> role of the document unclear. Either the RFC 2119 reference and keywords
> have to be removed, or Abstract and perhaps title have to be changed to
> make it clear who or what would conform to this specification.
Requirements language was not used in the body of the document, so I 
removed the reference.
It was used in the "transport appendix", but that's destined for another 
document anyway.
>
> I understand the Chairs are already aware some of the references need to
> be updated. The `[getusermedia]` reference should point to some proper
> publication of the W3C, under `http://www.w3.org/TR/` most likely.
Updated.
>
> There are various parts that have placeholder text, e.g. section 9 has
> "<whatever dB metrics makes sense here - most important that we have one
> only>" and '<WORKING GROUP DRAFT "MEDIA PROCESSING">', and Appendix A
> has 'The draft referred to as "transport and middle boxes" in Section 4
> has not been written yet.' That seems to indicate that the draft is not
> ready for publication yet.
Appendix A is waiting for further work to be done.
Luckily, the dB level point has been captured by 
draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio, so I replaced the dangling pointer with a 
reference to that.
>
> In section 12 is a typo "ad to" which should probably be "and to".
>
> Also in section 12, "The number of people who have taken part in the
> discussions surrounding this draft are too numerous to list". Ordinarily
> people would not be acknowledged simply for having taken part in some
> discussion surrounding a document, and it's usually not true that there
> have been "too many to list"; I think it would be better to remove the
> quoted text.
If adding more categories, anyone on the mailing list would probably 
belong. There have been many, and their input helped. Your name is now 
in there :-)
>
> As noted in http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Translations the document
> should not use "we" as that is hard to translate and usually it's not
> very clear who the pronoun refers to (authors, editors, working group,
> the IETF at large, or someone else).
This only occured in appendix A - removed and replaced with "this 
specification", more or less.
>
> There seem to be many phrases used in the document that are not very
> suitable for a general audience, examples are "communications event",
> "communications partnership", and "a strong changer of the marketplace
> of deployment". (Two of the phrases there come from the last paragraph
> in 2.3. which as a whole is not very comprehensible and probably needs
> to be re-written).
At the moment, I do not know of a better way to write it. There probably 
is one, but I don't have it.