Re: [rtcweb] Preparing for publication request of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have not seen any feedback on Mary's review comments. I think these
are valid improvements of the document. They do not appear to me to
change the meaning of the document, only clarify what is meant. I think
the authors should try to incorporate these into the next revision.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2014-01-15 21:57, Mary Barnes wrote:
> I had thought I had previously done a detailed review of this doc, but I
> can't find it to know whether changes suggested have been incorporated.
> So, I have re-reviewed the document and I think it's almost ready to
> progress.   I think it needs some editorial clarifications and nits to
> be fixed as summarized below.   Note, I did not review the appendix. 
> 
> Regards,
> Mary. 
> 
> In general, I still find the style of this document very difficult to
> grok since the requirements are not grouped in categories and one has to
> keep switching back and forth in the document to match requirements to
> use cases.  
> 
> Questions/Comments for clarification:
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 1)  Section 1, 1st paragraph, last sentence.  It's not clear to me that
> "e.g., a telephone" is meaningful.  I don't think you're intending to
> interworking with a legacy PSTN connected black phone.  So, it might be
> more accurate to say " e.g., a mobile phone or a SIP UA".  
> 2) Section 3.3.1.1.  Next to last paragraph.  I'm not sure what you mean
> by different "makes".  I think you mean different types of devices
> (e.g., mobile, SIP UA, etc. ).   That all said, I don't think that's not
> so relevant.  I think simply stating different OSs and different
> browsers is sufficient. 
> 3) Section 3.3.6.1.  It's not at all clear to me why this requirement is
> considered specific to WebRTC.  I would think the access network changes
> should be transparent to WebRTC.  Certainly, the device needs to know
> what's happening, but I think whether this works is entirely based on
> the internals of the device and the specific access network technology,
> and not WebRTC application.   
> 4) Section 3.3.10.1.  Why is F24 not considered an additional
> requirement here?  Also, do you not need to have a statement as to what
> other use case is the basis for this one such that the core requirements
> are reference?   
> 5) Section 3.3.11.1, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence.  I don't understand
> what this is trying to say.   What is meant by "enhance
> intelligibility"? And, what is meant by "pans the audio from different
> participants differently when rendering the audio". 
> [As an aside, I will note that some of the CLUE use cases likely
> encompass what you are trying to communicate here in this requirements
> (including subsequent paragraphs and the last "Note:"), so you may want
> to look at those and use similar terminology and concepts, that CLUE
> spent a lot of time developing. ] 
> 6) Section 3.4. I would expect F27 to  be referenced by at least one of
> these use cases.   
> 7) Section 4.2. 
> - General:  I am a bit confused as there are requirements in this
> section that aren't referenced in section 3, including F19, F23, and F27
>  .  Perhaps, that's because there are some missing references in section
> 3 (see item 7)?  If not, then why are they there.  At a minimum you
> should add a sentence to section 4.1 indicating that not all the
> requirements are derived from the use cases (contrary to what is
> currently stated).  
> - What's the difference between F24 and F34?    
> - F30.  I had to read this several times to understand it due to
> structure.  I would suggest changing as follows:
> OLD:
> 
>    F30     The browser must be able to use the screen (or
>            a specific area of the screen) or what a certain
>            application displays on the screen to generate
>            streams.
> 
> NEW: 
> 
> F30     The browser must be able to generate streams using the entire user display, a specific area of the user's display or the information being displayed by a specific application. 
> 
>              On this one, I also think it would be good to clarify what type of stream - are you talking about using protocol to share content or or is this just a video stream?  Or would you have two separate requirement to cover both of these? 
> 
> 
> - F32.  I can't quite grok this one.  Maybe you are trying to say
> something like the following?
> OLD:
> 
>  F32     There browser must support that STUN and TURN
>            servers to use are supplied by other entities
>            than via the web application (i.e. the network
>            provider).
> 
> NEW: 
> 
>  F32     The browser must support the use of STUN and TURN
>            servers that are supplied by entities
>            other than the web application (i.e. the network
>            provider).
> 
> 
> 8) Section 7.  I have mixed feelings about leaving this list with URLs
> in the document.  I think it's good to highlight the use cases that
> weren't incorporated and why they weren't.  I think it would add a lot
> more value to provide a concise summary of the reasons they weren't
> added than just including links, in particular, since we usually don't
> like to publish RFCs with links.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nits:
> ------
> 1) Section 1, 1st paragraph, last sentence, "at least one of the
> end-user client" ->  "at least one of the end-user clients"
> 2) Section 3.2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence:
> -  "retrives" -> "retrieves"
> - add a section reference for "Simple Video Communication Service"  
> 3)  Section 3.2. , next to last sentence. "retrieved from" -> "derived
> from"  
> 4) Section 3.3.5.1, 3rd paragraph, 
> - 1st sentence. "session" - "session"
> - 2nd sentence. "straddle the boundary between the internal network and
> external." -> "straddles the boundary between the internal and external
> networks. 
> 5) Section 3.3.5.1, 4th paragraph.   "they still want to have the
> traffic to stay" -> "they still want the traffic to say"
> 6) Section 3.3.61. 1st paragraph. I'm not sure why this ends with ":"
> 7) Section 3.3.6.1, 2nd paragraph.   "device used by one of the users
> have several" -> "device used by one of the users has several"
> 8) Section 3.3.11.1, 1st para, 1st sentence.  "In this use case is the
> Simple..." ->  "In this use case, the Simple...."  
> 9) Section 3.3.11.1 3rd from last paragraph.  "use experience" -> "user
> experience"
> 10) Section 3.4.3.1, 2nd paragraph.   "participant send" -> "participant
> sends"   
> 11) Section 4.2:
> - F35. "of that streams" -> "that streams" 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Magnus Westerlund
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> 
>     WG,
> 
>     This is related to:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements/
> 
>     We have held WG last call and there has been updates to the document to
>     resolve the WG last call comments. It is now time to finish up this
>     document and request publication of it. I am the document shepherd for
>     this document and will prepare my write-up of the document and in that
>     process do the necessary reviews.
> 
>     I also asked the WG for input on two open issues that needs to be closed
>     prior to publication request. So please review these and provide your
>     input on them.
> 
>     This is your chance to verify that your comments has been addressed in
>     the revision. Please provide any feedback on the document within the
>     next week, i.e. no later than the 22 Feb.
> 
>     Note, that I will require that the WG approves of any changes in this
>     state, rather than any silence is approval model. So if you want some
>     change to go into the document at this stage there need to (rough)
>     consensus to introduce it and clearly shown support.
> 
> 
>     Cheers
> 
>     Magnus Westerlund
> 
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
>     <tel:%2B46%2010%207148287>
>     Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
>     <tel:%2B46%2073%200949079>
>     SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------