Re: [rtcweb] Consistent WebRTC Descriptions in WebRTC RFC Abstracts

Hi Barry,

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:15:27PM +1100, Barry Dingle wrote:
> 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?*

We did not see any further discusison on this topic.  The RFC Editor
does not have a requirement here.  We suggest discussing this with
your WG group and chairs. 

Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg

> 
> 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 <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> 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 non??media 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. WebRTC??level 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
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >