[rtcweb] Consistent WebRTC Descriptions in WebRTC RFC Abstracts

[Barry Dingle <[e-mail]>]

The recently proposed Standards *WebRTC Data Channel RFC* and *WebRTC Data
Channel Establishment Protocol RFC* have a consistent single sentence
describing what WebRTC is in their Abstracts. They both say:

The WebRTC framework specifies protocol support for direct interactive
rich communication using audio,
video, and data between two peers' web-browsers.

I notice that several other WebRTC proposed RFCs have single sentence
WebRTC descriptions in their Abstract *but they are differen*t e.g. WebRTC
Overview RFC; Media Transport + Use of RTP; Security; Security Architecture

All the others have *NO WebRTC description*.

*Do we need a consistent single sentence in the Abstract of all WebRTC
RFCs?*

If so, what should the wording be?

Should the wording be in the Abstract of ALL WebRTC RFCs?


Barry Dingle

Fellow of University of Melbourne, Australia

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:38 AM, The IESG <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'WebRTC Data Channels'
>   (draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13.txt) as Proposed Standard
>
> This document is the product of the Real-Time Communication in
> WEB-browsers Working Group.
>
> The IESG contact persons are Richard Barnes and Alissa Cooper.
>
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel/
>
>
>
>
> Technical Summary:
>
> This document specifies the non­media data transport aspects of the WebRTC
> framework. It provides an architectural overview of how the Stream Control
> Transmission
> Protocol (SCTP) is used in the WebRTC context as a generic transport
> service.
>
> Working Group Summary:
>
> There was early discussion of the stacking order, but there has been no
> significant
> controversy since that was fixed. There have been a number of discussion
> on how to manage
> particular aspects of the larger context (e.g. WebRTC­level congestion
> control, since SCTP
> manages congestion control at the association level) and this has played a
> part in those, but
> not in any way that mde it the focus of controversy.
>
> Document Quality:
>
> There are implmentations of previous versions of this document, and we
> expect updates to
> them to the final version. Vendor support seems solid. This document did
> not require
> expert review of the types noted.
>
> Personnel:
>
> The document shepherd is Ted Hardie; the responsible Area Director is
> Richard Barnes.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>