Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, “No solution defined”

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 03 May 2013 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 666B021F919D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 05:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n7nGHjMwfiGo for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 05:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EE121F90B1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 05:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FADE39E129 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:09:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id keM+CLEIdc5b for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:09:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F72939E125 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:09:14 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5183A8EA.8000805@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 14:09:14 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <517E7DDD.5030705@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <517E7DDD.5030705@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, “No solution defined”
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, 03 May 2013 12:09:21 -0000

On 04/29/2013 04:04 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
>
>
> This relates to the comments to the WG last call of the use-cases and 
> requirements document [1].
>
> The topic in this mail is the feedback that for some use-cases and 
> requirements no solution has been defined yet. This was brought up in 
> [2], with responses in [3] and [4].
>
> My thinking here is that the bulk of this document was developed a 
> long time ago when this effort started out. The use-cases, and derived 
> requirements, reflect what was considered important at that time.
>
> We basically have two options here: either we publish that document, 
> including use-cases/requirements that we have not developed solutions 
> to yet, early (knowing we may not meet all use-cases/requirements), or 
> we go for a later publication where we update the document to reflect 
> what we have actually designed.
>
> My preference would be to go for the early publication, and to use 
> this document later in the process to see what requirements we do 
> meet, and what requirements we don’t meet. (This is basically my 
> proposal for use of this document, referring again to Bernard’s mail 
> on 2119 language [5]).

This makes sense to me. In an ideal world (that is, not this one), there 
would be a document published after the first suite of specs that laid out:

- Which use cases and requirements are met by the current set of documents
- Which use cases and requirements can be met by further work (v2 and 
subsequent)
- Which use cases and requirements are unrealistic to fulfil and should 
be abandoned

I don't think we'll actually write such a document. But it's useful to 
think about it that way.

Let's publish early.

>
> Stefan
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06136.html
>
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06180.html
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06187.html
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06200.html
> [5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06181.html
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb