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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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.

The original intent was that an application that claims conformance to 
the RTCWEB specification could specify only that it conforms to this 
document, pulling the normative references in by reference.

It is up to the chairs to determine if this purpose is a) desirable and 
b) achievable.

>
> 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.

(speaking with W3C WG chair hat on) These documents are not finished.
It is up to the IETF whether it wishes to refer to them as 
work-in-progress or hold publication until publications exist.

>
> 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.

Noted. These are important to get right.

>
> 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.
>
> 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).

Seven occurences found, five of them in appendix A, which the text says 
should be moved to a different document, and one in the change log.
>
> 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).

While the readers of this document are not a "general" audience, this 
paragraph was not easy to write, and does seem hard to read. Alternative 
suggestions are welcome.

>
> regards,