Re: [rtcweb] WG adoption for Use Case document

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Fri, 17 June 2011 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 29BC011E80CB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 KGl18FWkIEiE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52AE011E808B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so2368892vxg.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qkDXEhdsCADOB7jHuoxfRi0F7G7b4SmrmKozdBp8yvA=; b=k+Coq+/hrsE1if7CAKR80+0UDo4WOkTmTDKWYWetfYlL1HA405sTU35fP6Pj1jrYvw z+vbUZ0oZhGeXwpQj+P+of8X4TNFEFRlVV+N1Rf78BfcPUkSjQFEQMUlEhblnofudBU7 mlqLS/OZ2KjnU+3ETpFCM3VMnqkJP2nlG/Bt0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=jcvXtA9wnmOpdDQ8h6FSTYJBoQTXobuMHZOgG3EIohr3mjaKo6lmHneNjs2ChX+K72 Nh4/0f4Du7mf9qrefoREDDLDUhPipGCftnksAH81D//iHD1AHNkRggs+HFlI7xeO/Fkl 6EBcDdG0pRYtOa92SmpHBwZr+0/3DYbUU987E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.159.202 with SMTP id xe10mr2931597vdb.263.1308311969597; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.158.39 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DFB09AC.1090001@ericsson.com>
References: <4DFB09AC.1090001@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:59:29 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTin07tRyCTmjqQk-veP7GkVsKJ+vXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec53f8f4f3409ce04a5e71e15"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG adoption for Use Case document
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 11:59:31 -0000

I think the document is a good starting point, although, I personally would
prefer that the mapping would should the use cases that were used to derive
the requirements versus the requirements that are derived from the use case.
 Otherise, you have to   search through the use cases to see the one from
which the requirement was derived. Or perhaps having the mapping both
directions.

Also, I would suggest some reformatting so that new use cases can be easily
added - i.e., it doesn't look like the list is a result of the
<list>...</list> xml formatting. If that's not the case, I still don't like
this dashy list style.

Regards,
Mary.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> WG,
>
> We would like to adopt a WG document with the purpose for describing use
> cases for the RTCWEB work. This document would be targeted as
> publication as an Inforamtional RFC eventually.
>
> The candidate document for this is:
> Web Real-Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-holmberg-rtcweb-ucreqs/
>
> Based on our interim last week it was clear that there are some use
> cases that clearly needs development. However, the WG chairs believe
> that future development of the document can be done as WG item.
>
> WG participants please indicate if you agree in adopting this document
> as a basis, or if not, what the short comings you would like to see
> addressed prior to adoption. Once more, the document will be continued
> to be developed under the WG control and this is far from any final
> version.
>
> Please provide your view no later than Friday the 24th.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Magnus Westerlund
> WG chair
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>