Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 02/22/2013 02:41 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 01:23 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> The point of a Last Call at this point is (at least I think of it that
>> way) that any proposal for a substantive change in the document after a
>> concluded Last Call is treated as reopening a closed issue, rather than
>> continuing an open debate on which no conclusion has been drawn.
> Should I take this to mean that before the document is sent to the IESG
> for publication there would be another call for comments to look at more
> editorial issues? I am fine with your other responses, but...
That's for the chairs to decide, but I'd advise them to do so.

When significant time passes, there needs to be a review of the document 
for updated references anyway, so we might as well check for bad grammar 
and obsolete terminology too.
>
>>> There seem to be many phrases used in the document that are not very
>>> suitable for a general audience, examples are "communications event",
>>> "communications partnership", and "a strong changer of the marketplace
>>> of deployment". (Two of the phrases there come from the last paragraph
>>> in 2.3. which as a whole is not very comprehensible and probably needs
>>> to be re-written).
>> At the moment, I do not know of a better way to write it. There probably
>> is one, but I don't have it.
> ... this probably needs to be looked at again prior to an IETF-wide Last
> Call; I do agree that it can wait a while.

Thank you.