Re: On the way to CR for webrtc-pc

On 01/05/17 15:30, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is reasonable or not. the question is who has
> actually reviewed the current document start to end to make sure it
> all hangs together and also matches with the IETF documents. If we
> had a specific set of names of who had done that, I think it would be
> easier to decide.  Do you know who has review it ?

I don't know (apart from chairs and editors) who has read the document 
start to end, but we have asked people in the group to review it several 
times (we've also asked other groups to review it - and received comments).

The fact that big parts of the document has several implementations is 
to me a sign that it has been reviewed - all implementers (I assume) has 
read the document when implementing (and filed Issues when things are 
not clear).

Speaking of Issues: that the count of github Issues and Pull Requests is 
now at 1149 is another sign of reviewing - and note that we only moved 
to github in the fall 2014, we had another bug tracker before that.

The APIs and features specified in webrtc-pc are also widely used.

Given that going to CR is done to [1]:

"- signal to the wider community that it is time to do a final review
- gather implementation experience
- begin formal review by the Advisory Committee, who may recommend that 
the document be published as a W3C Recommendation, returned to the 
Working Group for further work, or abandoned.
- Provide an exclusion opportunity per the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]."

my personal view is that we're fine when it comes to reviewing. People 
tell me that for a document this complex we'll iterate at least once at 
CR, so I'd like to get to the first CR now.

Going to later levels (PR, Rec) puts higher requirements (not least 
regarding testing). I think we're fine for CR.



>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 1:30 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
>> <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> as announced [1] our ambition is to request the transition to CR
>> during this month. We received no negative feedback, so that is
>> what we're working towards.
>> We've made good progress on the open Issues, and think we will be
>> able to resolve them satisfactory before the end of the month.
>> We're doodling for one more Virtual Interim just in case we need a
>> meeting to resolve some issues (and it's early May so that would
>> move us into next month) [2].
>> Since we in [1] asked everyone to file new Issues for everything
>> they wanted addressed before asking for transition to CR, and that
>> is about a month ago, we plan to label new Issues raised between
>> now and the transition request "to be dealt with after transition
>> to CR has been requested" or similar, and deal with them after the
>> transition request has been issued.
>> Let us know if you think any of this is unreasonable.
>> Stefan for the chairs.
>> [1]

Received on Monday, 1 May 2017 18:26:25 UTC