Subject: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11.txt

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:49:43 +0000

From the change log:

    o  Described that the API requirements are really from a W3C
       perspective and are supplied as an appendix in the introduction.
       Moved API requirements to an Appendix.

    o  Removed the "Conventions" section with the key-words and reference
       to RFC2119.  Also changed uppercase MUST's/SHOULD's to lowercase.

    o  Added a note on the proposed use of the document to the
       introduction.

    o  Removed the note talking about WS from the "FW that only allows
       http" use-case.

    o  Removed the word "Skype" that was used as example in one of the
       use-cases.

    o  Clarified F3 (the req saying the everything the browser sends must
       be rate controlled).

    o  Removed the TBD saying we need to define reasonable levels from
       the requirement saying that quality must be good even in presence
       of packet losses (F5), and changed "must" to "should" (Based on a
       list discussion involving Bernard).

    o  Removed F6 ("The browser must be able to handle high loss and
       jitter levels in a graceful way."), also after a list discussion.

    o  Clarified F7 (used to say that the browser must support fast
       stream switches, now says that reference frames must be inserted
       when requested).
    o  Removed the questions from F9 (echo cancellation), F10
       (syncronization), F21 (telephony codec).

    o  Exchanged "restrictive firewalls" for "limited middleboxes" in F19
       (as proposed by Martin).

    o  Expanded DTMF and IVR in F22 (proposed by Martin)

    o  Added ref to RFC5405 in F23 (proposed by Lars Eggert).

    o  Exchanged "service provided" for "web application" in F32.

    o  Changed the text in 3.2.1 that motivates F36 (new text "It is
       essential that media and data be encrypted, authenticated ...
       bound to the user identity."); and rewrote F36, included a ref to
       RFC5479.

    o  Changed "quality of service" to "quality of experience" in F38.

    o  Added F39.

    o  Used new formulation of A17 (proposed by Martin).

    o  Updated A20.

    o  Updated A25.

Things that have not been done:

- No use-case on emergency services added (as said already in 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07253.html)

- No use-case on real-time text added (as said already in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07254.html)

- No clarification on what solution(s) related to multiple resolutions 
of the same content added (discussed in 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07256.html but no 
input received).

- The order of the requirements (Fn) is still a mess - but I kept it as 
is for this version to make diffing simpler. To be fixed in an upcoming 
version.

Stefan

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for 
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11.txt
Date: 10:40
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>,    Göran 
Eriksson AP <[email-masked]>,    Stefan Håkansson LK 
<[email-masked]>,    Göran Eriksson AP 
<[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11.txt
has been successfully submitted by Christer Holmberg and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements
Revision:	 11
Title:		 Web Real-Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements
Creation date:	 2013-06-27
Group:		 rtcweb
Number of pages: 30
URL: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11.txt
Status: 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements
Htmlized: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
Diff: 
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11

Abstract:
    This document describes web based real-time communication use-cases.
    Requirements on the browser functionality are derived from use-cases.

The IETF Secretariat