[rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, “2119 Language Requirements”

[Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>]

First off: thanks to everyone that responded to the last call ([1]), 
there is a lot of valuable and helpful feedback provided in those 
responses!.

This mail is the first in a series trying to process and conclude the 
responses and the discussion that followed as a result of the WG last 
call of the use-cases and requirements document.

The topic in this mail is what Bernard brought up in [2] in the context 
of what the document is going to be used for, namely if referencing 
RFC2119 is appropriate. I interpret the discussion ([2] - [8] - and 
please correct me if I missed any related mail) to lead to the 
conclusion that we should not reference RFC2119.

My plan moving forward is to remove the reference to RFC 2119, and in 
addition to replace the uppercase MUST’s in the requirements with 
lowercase must’s.

As for the discussion of what the document will be used for, I will 
return to that in another mail.

Stefan

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06136.html

[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06181.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06186.html
[4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06191.html
[5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06197.html
[6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06218.html
[7] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06225.html
[8] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06292.html