Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think the proposed document split looks very good.

Regards,

Christer

________________________________
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: 17. kesäkuuta 2011 7:31
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split

Hi Folks,

In order to allow folks time to submit draft-ietf-rtcweb versions in time for the upcoming 00 deadline, the chairs would like to first outline our theory of the document splits to meet our chartered milestones (to refresh you self on them: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charter/) in the August time frame.

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.

Note that this set of "documents we'd like" is missing one that says "requirements".  Discussion among the chairs has come to consensus that we have at least three different kinds of requirements being discussed and the the use of the term "requirement" is hindering both our internal discussion and the balance of work between us and the W3C at the moment.  So, we'd like to have the focus be on what the parts of the system *do* within the context of a system overview, rather than on a discussion of requirements or, even worse, a meta discussion of what the word "requirements" means in particular contexts.

If folks our okay with this document set, the chairs will then appoint editors from among those who have contributed text so far.  This may mean that the initial -00 versions have a strong resemblance to the individual submissions they'd already presented; it also may not.  We'd like to remind everyone that taking on the role of document editor in an IETF context means accepting the responsibility to make the document reflect the consensus of the group.  If a WG -00 is missing items or needs revision to meet the needs of the group, in other words, that's normal--send text.

Ted, Magnus, and Cullen