Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 17 June 2011 07:55 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 4258811E8096 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 leu5CWUL9bnh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0BD11E808A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-94-4dfb087cd92d
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2C.D0.20773.C780BFD4; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:55:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:55:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4DFB0879.4080001@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:55:37 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
References: <BANLkTinu402NoPovU6nDWAKKUBKfbJyk3Q@mail.gmail.com> <4DFAE451.9030105@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DFAE451.9030105@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for comment on document split
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: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:55:43 -0000

On 2011-06-17 07:21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/16/2011 9:30 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> If someone wants to implement the simplest, core capability that is useful 
> within this context of service, how many docs are they going to have to read?

That will likely be the full set of standards track documents, and the
overview to know how they fit together

> 
> Which ones? How long before they will be written?

The point of getting them written is exactly why we have this split. We
try to distribute the editing load over a number of people and people
expertise to get high quality documents.

> 
> For classic Web, I think it is still just 2.  Same for email.
> 
> My question is motivated by the usual concern about barriers to adoption that 
> can stymie new services.

Well, RTCWEB is primarily umbrella standardization. Something we rarely
do in IETF. This is actually about gluing together some 20-30 or more
specifications into a service.

Thus I think comparing it with basic HTTP service is not that relevant,
which by the way still requires you to read a bit more than 2 specs.
Even if I assume you have a working TCP/IP with DNS system to build on,
you still need the HTTP, the URI, the MIME spec and likely a few small
pieces more before you even can fetch an referenced object.


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
----------------------------------------------------------------------