Re: RQTF Agenda+ Gunnar's RAUR suggested edits for discussion

Thanks Josh, and thanks Gunnar. Some comments/questions in line below. I can add
to github later, but need to move quickly for now ...

Joshue O Connor writes:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been working through Gunnar's input in this branch ( thanks to Gunnar
> for excellent input).
> 
> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/gunnarhm-edits-to-RAUR/raur/index.html
> 
> I'm front loading some of items in this mail, that I think we need to
> discuss or clarify first on our upcoming call. They are:
> 
> #161 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/161 13.16 "IRC style - describe
> requirement rather than referring to IRC"
Clearly we could do this in any of several ways, eg. point to the
Wikipedia definition, etc. Question is why? Do we really think people
reading this document won't know what IRC is? Or why it still matters in
a world dominated by FaceBook and Twitter?

I'd like to know the goal of describing IRC's value before trying to
respond on this. More info on the request would help.

> 
> I've also updated a requirement relating to encryption. The text is added to
> 12c:
> 
> #175 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/175 Encryption support references
> 
> REQ 12c: Ensure that privacy and security options are maintained when using
> relay services. Ideally encryption support should be available for all main
> and alternate communication channels.
> 
Well, we can specify the preference of this requirement, but I don't
think we can say we'll only talk to services that support encryption?
i.e. we are specifying what WebRTC does, not what the relay services
decide to do.

> And I've minted a new draft requirement for "3.10 Video relay services (VRS)
> and remote interpretation (VRI)"
> 
> #177 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/177
> 
> "12d: Ensure WebRTC supports integration of traditional mobile telephony and
> relay services."
> 
Please define "traditional." Does that include TDD still? Or perhaps
also pulse dialing devices? Party line phones? Where do we draw the line
and why do we draw it at that juncture?

> Regarding the rest of the Github issues, I've got the suggested edits in
> this branch for RQTF review, but I think they are mostly editorial -
> however, please do review and I'm happy to discuss on list (and on call next
> week):
> 
Thanks, Josh. Hope we can even get some of this going on list.

Best,

Janina

>  #155/#156 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/155  "Text" should be one of
> the possible media in a call.
> #157 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/157  3.4 Note looks very specific to
> non-WebRTC technologies
> #158 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/158 3.5 User need 5. clarify
> "differently"
> #159 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/159 3.8 user need 10 add real-time
> text
> #160 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/160 3.10 Req 12b VRS and VRI, Move
> specific example to note
> #162 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/162 5.1 in note add reference to
> ITU-T Series H supplement 1 for sign language requirements
> #163 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/163 5.2 Bandwidth for audio
> #164 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/164 5.3 Bandwidth for video -
> confusing title
> #165 https://github.com/w3c/apa/issues/165 6 table additions
> 
> Ok, great stuff and lots to discuss, please do start new threads etc as you
> see fit.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Josh
> -- 
> Emerging Web Technology Specialist/Accessibility (WAI/W3C)

-- 

Janina Sajka
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Thursday, 15 April 2021 15:03:58 UTC