W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rqtf@w3.org > July 2019

RE: Mapping of draft WebRTC user requirements and RFC 5194 ToIP/RTT

From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:56:06 +0000
To: Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org>
CC: RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN7PR07MB484999CB48634A6A523DC464ABFB0@BN7PR07MB4849.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Thank you, Josh, for revising the document - brief comments appear below.

Do we have sufficient user scenarios to cover all of the requirements that we've found in other documents (e.g., RFC5194), or should we add more scenarios to introduce some of those requirements, while citing other sources for the details?

This question elaborates upon my remarks at the meeting today.

Now that the scope of the document has been better defined (in particular, it is not limited to issues that touch the WebRTC specification), I think the sections/scenarios flagged for possible removal could be revisited.

EN 301 549 and RFC5194 do not include user scenarios, thus one strategy for us would be:

1. To ensure we have user scenarios that embrace all of the requirements (our own as well as those found elsewhere).
2. To cite other documents for specific requirements, where applicable.
3. To specify additional requirements ourselves, as appropriate. Currently, we have user scenarios/stories, but not explicit requirements.

I think RFC5194 is well constructed in that the requirements are stated and numbered for reference. I'm not arguing that we need to follow this pattern, but having requirements which are stated precisely and set apart from the user scenarios (even if in the same sections) would be useful.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 8:30 AM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Mapping of draft WebRTC user requirements and RFC 5194 ToIP/RTT

Hi Jason,

>> As a general suggestion, based on recent RQTF meetings, you could
>> consider reworking the introductory material to clarify that these
>> are general real-time communication use cases - not specific to
>> issues affecting the WebRTC specification. You could then separate
>> out the issues that affect WebRTC or other W3C work.

Done - you can see the updated doc here:


I've updated the APA wiki link to this page also.

Comments etc welcome, happy to discuss on the call.



Emerging Web Technology Specialist/A11y (WAI/W3C)


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2019 19:56:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 17 January 2023 20:26:46 UTC