[rtcweb] Fwd: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Fri, 21 June 2013 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7881A11E818C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.065
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iEbtplKBwU0B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59F621F9BF6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9e6d000002643-c5-51c45cdd1752
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0B.C1.09795.DDC54C15; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:02:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:02:05 +0200
Message-ID: <51C45CDC.1070401@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:02:04 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <51C157BA.70509@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <51C157BA.70509@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <51C157BA.70509@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3VvduzJFAg9t3pCzW/mtnd2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXRl/3QaaC1cIVn55NZWxgfMTfxcjJISFgIvH8Sh8zhC0mceHe ejYQW0jgFKPEhn1cEPYaRonzGzRBbF4BbYmTJ38ydTFycLAIqEqcnusOEmYTsJDYcus+C4gt KhAlMWfdAzaIckGJkzOfgMVFBIQltr7qZQKxhQXsJVqXv2SCGK8p0fcWIs4poCUxd9tXVohz JCW2vGhnB1klIWAqsewP2CpmAT2JKVdbGCFseYntb+cwQ4zRllj+rIVlAqPQLCSbZyFpmYWk ZQEj8ypG9tzEzJz0cvNNjMCAPLjlt8EOxk33xQ4xSnOwKInzfjq1K1BIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+ qDQntfgQIxMHp1QDo8D2/rnMhV+7tuW/kgzbkxaRvCX70e8Ip8I7v9+ra/Hu2ZyXUquqVHqJ lfFOSXpo6w2NTMUlKwSDntYeyn6o+2vOh/gO02X7b1zyDPsTLNd5mt1wh9nm7EdTzq/PPiKl IB0m8/uUQELfXk7t9TO7c1MnTi5r3Z9XIfKB7dNvy8Jfx47nnlymqcRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAHmc Is0WAgAA
Subject: [rtcweb] Fwd: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
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, 21 Jun 2013 14:02:12 -0000


if you have any opinions on the following thread, which started with the
email below, please send them to the RAI list:




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:03:22 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
To: <rai@ietf.org>


as you know, in the RAI area we have always considered having effective
processes to help us produce relevant and timely specifications a very
important issue. When our environment has changed, we have sometimes
modified or fine tuned our processes in order to continue being
effective. A few examples (among many others) of such changes were the
introduction of mentors, the old SIPPING process, P headers, and the
current DISPATCH process.

It is time for us to look at the current state of affairs and discuss
whether or not we need to do certain things in a different way.

In particular, we currently have a few groups (e.g., RTCWeb and CLUE)
that work on higher-level constructions, which use elements developed in
other working groups. For example, CLUE could potentially specify a
mechanism that used mechanisms developed in MMUSIC or AVTEXT such as the
offer/answer model and a number of RTP extensions.

Note that what we called "higher-level constructions" above are referred
to by different names by different people: architectures, applications,
frameworks, etc. It does not really matter how we call them because this
discussion is not about terminology and it is fairly clear what this
type of work is about.

The way this type of work is currently done in RAI requires the
high-level WGs and the WGs developing the individual pieces to
communicate often. Those communications are not always easy, since
different WGs sometimes have different views on priorities,
requirements, use cases, etc.

What we would like to get your feedback on is: do we need a better way
to handle this type of work in RAI or our current process is as good as
it gets?

Note that we are interested in getting constructive feedback and ideas
on how to improve things. Please, focus your feedback on those aspects.


(on behalf of both RAI ADs)

RAI mailing list