Re: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 09 June 2015 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFB01B30C8; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AX6l5H58___4; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 670B21B30C5; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t59KS0SD057059 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:28:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <55774C50.4030709@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:28:00 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150608122843.32038.25147.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150608122843.32038.25147.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/cywGQD9N5cyZAonYveLvZdhXi44>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.ad@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-video@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:28:03 -0000

On 6/8/15 07:28, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I do wonder that the Abstract and Introduction are both short, and, yet,
> give such different descriptions of the document as to make it look like
> two different documents.  Given how short they are, perhaps it really is
> best to make them the same, no?
>
> Abstract:
>     This specification provides the requirements and considerations for
>     WebRTC applications to send and receive video across a network.  It
>     specifies the video processing that is required, as well as video
>     codecs and their parameters.
>
> Introduction:
>     This
>     specification defines how the video is used and discusses special
>     considerations for processing the video.  It also covers the video-
>     related algorithms WebRTC devices need to support.
>

I think the quoted sections say pretty much the same thing, but I'm not 
really attached to either formulation. I'll happily replace the cited 
"Introduction" text with the contents of the Abstract.

/a