Subject: [rtcweb] Consistent description of WebRTC in abstracts

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:22:36 -0800

Howdy,

Barry recently raised a question about the Abstracts of WebRTC-related
RFCs:  should there be a consistent single sentence in the Abstract of all
related RFCs?  The opinion of the chairs is that any Abstract text approved
by the working group represents its consensus, and that there is no
particular need to require uniformity.  Authors and editors are, of course,
welcome to re-use the existing text.  Folks who prefer the existing text
may also, of course, suggest edits for the Abstract as for other parts of
the document.

regards,

Ted, Sean, and Cullen

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:28:37 +1300

On 27 February 2015 at 10:22, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Barry recently raised a question about the Abstracts of WebRTC-related RFCs:
> should there be a consistent single sentence in the Abstract of all related
> RFCs?

What would that sentence say?

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:35:32 -0800

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> RFCs:

​Barry raised the point because the Data Channel drafts used this phrasing:

The WebRTC framework specifies protocol support for direct interactive
rich communication using audio,
video, and data between two peers' web-browsers.

where other drafts use other phrases. The Security architecture draft,
for example, says:

The Real-Time Communications on the Web (RTCWEB) working group is tasked with
standardizing protocols for real-time communications between Web
browsers, generally
called "WebRTC".

​
and overview says:

This document gives an overview and context of a protocol suite intended
for use with real-time applications that can be deployed in browsers -
"real time communication on the Web".

​Ted​

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:37:00 -0800

My original message was cc'ed to rfc-design because I didn't catch an
auto-complete error; please follow up without them cc'ed.

thanks,

Ted