Re: [rtcweb] Draft minutes for day two, IETF 87

"Hutton, Andrew" <> Thu, 22 August 2013 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9D211E819D for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aog2CUsmXpBY for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717D521F8C0C for <>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Server) with ESMTP id 180831EB84E9; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:02:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:02:52 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <>
To: Ted Hardie <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Draft minutes for day two, IETF 87
Thread-Index: AQHOmR/g4coZKv8doku4tE2LV/5VkZmhBkbA
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:02:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft minutes for day two, IETF 87
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:03:06 -0000

With regard to the following entry in the minutes.

"Andy Hutton:  Need to complete use cases and requirements.  My understanding is that the entire WG can't be done until we have met the requirements.  Don't disagree with the 70 percent estimate. 
Cullen:  The WG doesn't need to meet its requirements, it needs to decide which ones it will meet and when." 

This does not fully reflect the point I made which was that the requirements document needs to be completed and then we can review how complete we are against the requirements. If there are requirements that are not to be addressed at this point then this should be a decision made by the working group.

I also stated that I believe should be on the list of RTCWeb related drafts. This is because it is currently the only draft that addresses the firewall related requirements in the use case and requirements drafts.


From: [] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: 14 August 2013 19:55
Subject: [rtcweb] Draft minutes for day two, IETF 87

We're splitting up the minutes review for the two different days of the last IETF meeting.  Please review and send corrections to the list.  Many thanks to Bernard Aboba and Suhas Nandakumar for their excellent notes.