Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 22 February 2013 07:40 UTC
Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B418C21F8F23 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:40:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y9uz5NojYl5C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7DD21F8F00 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BD439E056; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:40:47 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AE7L38BJgd0u; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:40:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.30.42.73] (c-f8f1e555.03-217-73746f1.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [85.229.241.248]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77F3839E04C; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:40:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <512720F9.5030104@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:40:41 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
References: <i82ig8pdnb81tlbbbe79u6q7v4acmp67e3@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <51252F4D.1080606@alvestrand.no> <0eidi8df72v7lhml9g2g6o5cn63gbcfrjq@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <0eidi8df72v7lhml9g2g6o5cn63gbcfrjq@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05
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, 22 Feb 2013 07:40:50 -0000
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.
- [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05 Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overvi… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overvi… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overvi… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overvi… Harald Alvestrand