Subject: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:03:08 +0100

Hi,

As part of preparing the Doc shepherd write-up I have reviewed the draft
and have the following comments and suggestions for improvements.
I have to note that I found violations of formal requirements in this
documents. So these are all suggestions for improvements.

1. After the WG last call this draft implemented half of my suggestion
of making clear what additional requirements use case resulted in.
However, it didn't implemented the part where I suggested that on the
first occurrence of a requirement, the full requirement text needs to be
included. I note that also Mary Barnes commented on the current format
making things hard to read.

2. Abstract:
Requirements on the browser functionality are derived from use-cases.

Shouldn't there be a "the" before use-cases in this sentence?

3. Section 3.3.8 title:

Simple Video Communication Service with sharing

Isn't simply having sharing in the title a bit unclear? Shouldn't this
be "Desktop" or "Application" sharing?

4. section 4.1:
   F26     It must be possible to move from one network
           interface to another one

I think it is unclear what shall move in this requirement. Wouln't it be
clearer to state this like this?

   F26     The communication session must survive across a change of the
network interface used by the session.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:12:43 +0100

WG,

I haven't seen any feedback on this. I will leave it to the authors
choice if they think what I suggest are just clarification or changes.
If they are changes to what is required then I request that they seek WG
confirmation and if that is not provided the comments are rejected.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2014-01-16 15:03, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund