W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > June 2012

Re: : : Telco, details + draft agenda

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:23:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD0AB63.6000603@alvestrand.no>
To: "Sunyang (Eric)" <eric.sun@huawei.com>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 06/07/2012 02:44 PM, Sunyang (Eric) wrote:
> -----ʼԭ-----
> : Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] 
> ʱ: 201267 20:29
> ռ: public-media-capture@w3.org
> : Re: : Telco, details + draft agenda
>
> On 06/07/2012 10:57 AM, Sunyang (Eric) wrote:
>> Hi all, 
>>
>> My suggestion to agenda 1705 Requirement
>>
>> Use Case 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 should be kept in specification.
>> Use Case of 2.3 is mainly about mediastream processing, which is in mediastream group scope
> 2.3 does not deal with passing mediastreams over a wire; I think the
> interaction of mediastreams with other elements on a page came along to
> this group together with the definition of mediastreams.
>> Requirement should be separated to following kind
>>
>> Control/Permission
>> Content Playback
>> Multi-Devices/Parties
>> Privacity
>>
>> What's more the use case should be modified to has a formal format
>> Like: short abbreviation, motivation, derived requirement, and has a list number, for example uc 1, uc 2 etc
> Like the IETF use case document?
>
>
> [Yang]I haven't seen the IETF use case document, sorry, :) Do we need align with that?
>
Yes.

Our TF''s requirements document contains only non-network use cases; it
is a supplement to the RTCWEB/WEBRTC use cases document, which contains
only networked use cases.

The IETF requirements document is here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-08
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 13:24:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:35 UTC