Subject: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 05:28:43 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do wonder that the Abstract and Introduction are both short, and, yet,
give such different descriptions of the document as to make it look like
two different documents.  Given how short they are, perhaps it really is
best to make them the same, no?

Abstract:
   This specification provides the requirements and considerations for
   WebRTC applications to send and receive video across a network.  It
   specifies the video processing that is required, as well as video
   codecs and their parameters.

Introduction:
   This
   specification defines how the video is used and discusses special
   considerations for processing the video.  It also covers the video-
   related algorithms WebRTC devices need to support.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:28:00 -0500

>     related algorithms WebRTC devices need to support.

I think the quoted sections say pretty much the same thing, but I'm not 
really attached to either formulation. I'll happily replace the cited 
"Introduction" text with the contents of the Abstract.

/a