Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 14 February 2013 09:36 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 51A3B21F853A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:36:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.728
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.521, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i2yFUVnMdZTj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5EA021F8523 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:36:24 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f316d0000028db-3c-511cb0172cb7
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 75.DE.10459.710BC115; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:36:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:36:24 +0100
Message-ID: <511CB016.8040903@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:36:22 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
References: <50F9728E.6000206@ericsson.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1133A3268@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF013C85C2@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <D02FAF88-E403-4AFE-B1DD-2B4B0DB12A33@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <D02FAF88-E403-4AFE-B1DD-2B4B0DB12A33@csperkins.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja74BplAg2+PzSzO9nWxWyx/eYLR Yu2/dnYHZo9p9++zeSxZ8pPJ48bt98wBzFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGcsPz2QreKNSseDET7YG xg+yXYycHBICJhL/Wr+yQdhiEhfurQeyuTiEBE4ySlx5egnKWc4o8f/mUiCHg4NXQFvi/Asz kAYWAVWJ75fOMIHYbAIWEjd/NIINEhUIlthwcBVYnFdAUOLkzCcsILYIUP2O4/8YQWxmgWSJ k/engcWFBRwltvQtgNr1hFHi24mFYAlOoMSq9hVMIHslBMQl1rzhgOjVk5hytQVqjrxE89bZ zCC2ENBpDU0drBMYhWYhWT0LScssJC0LGJlXMbLnJmbmpJcbbmIEhu/BLb91dzCeOidyiFGa g0VJnDfM9UKAkEB6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmrxIUYmDk6pBsY8F0d2nrKIL9dLbl3tNcuu2PjF U1zKTyA2cn+mjPqx1R7dUjt5nzXGbI/wsRP6KzLLUa1C48dKNbFDrs/0pyr6evd5x2/Xzbkw 42DUgUs+LBlcB/ed+KGR82rNnNiP1h//x696NENP+s2mzjaRaQv+n5wlfEfbttlAbOlOvj/i FfXuzHn1+kosxRmJhlrMRcWJAGnylUEtAgAA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:36:26 -0000

WG,

The reason for a WG last call was not necessarily to stress the LAST
part, but rather to get sufficient number of eyes on the document to
determine if it is understandable. From my perspective that is still not
clear. I still encourage review of it.

But, it might be that this document will have to wait until that we are
certain that all necessary parts of the solution is covered by it.

Cheers

Magnus


On 2013-02-01 00:19, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> From a relatively quick re-read of this draft, I tend to agree that
>> it seems premature to last call it now. While the work seems to be
>> along the right lines, there's little benefit in having this draft
>> published before the referenced protocol drafts, and publishing it
>> earlier than those runs that risk that it's obsoleted by later
>> working group decisions. I'd think it better to delay this last
>> call until the group is ready to send this, the use cases and
>> requirements, and the core protocol drafts to the IESG together, as
>> one consistent set of documents.
> 
> Also, the statement that the chairs "do acknowledge that some
> references will be required to be updated before submitting for
> publication" seems a concern, given that a major point of this draft
> is to provide a roadmap to other RTCWeb specification documents. It
> would seem important for this draft to include an up-to-date list of
> references for the working group to check, to ensure the roadmap is
> correct, before issuing a last call for review.
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 Jan 2013, at 09:58, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
>> I am wondering whether this is really the right time to be calling
>> last call on this document and don't see the harm in leaving this
>> in draft status until we have made some progress on more important
>> issues and in the mean time this document may need updating to keep
>> up to date with decisions made regarding SDP issues etc.
>> 
>> I also have reviewing this draft on my list of things to do but
>> probably preparing for the interim is more important.
>> 
>> Regards Andy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
>>> (fluffy) Sent: 29 January 2013 18:51 To: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject:
>>> Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The combination of getting ready for the interim meeting and
>>> being sick, I am sorry but won't be able to get this done by
>>> deadline but I will still get a review done at later.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, Cullen
>>> 
>>> On Jan 18, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Magnus Westerlund 
>>> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> WG,
>>>> 
>>>> I would here by like to announce a two week WG last call that
>>>> ends on the 1st of February. Please review this, we chairs do
>>>> acknowledge
>>> that
>>>> some references will be required to be updated before
>>>> submitting for publication, but we do need determine if this is
>>>> ready for
>>> publication
>>>> and can consider it done.
>>>> 
>>>> Document is available here: 
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview/
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>> Magnus Westerlund
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> 
-
>>>> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> 
-
>>>> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6
>>>> | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto:
>>>> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> 
-
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>>>> list rtcweb@ietf.org 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>>> list rtcweb@ietf.org 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>> list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------