W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Proposed interim agenda

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 09:09:29 +0100
Message-ID: <50E68E39.5040808@ericsson.com>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 2013-01-03 18:02, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Chairs,
>
> Following on my proposed RTCWEB agenda, I've been doing some thinking
> about the WebRTC agenda as well. Given the recent activity on gUM and
> the size of the various proposed architectural changes, I think we
> should spend a lot of time (maybe 50%+) on that, with the balance
> spent trying to resolve specific blocking questions on WebRTC.
>
> This is rather more than Stefan had suggested in his message of
> December 17th, but when I look at where the implementations are and
> the state of the specs, it looks to me like we can actually get gUM
> finished now and that will bring a lot of implementation stability,
> where we know that WebRTC isn't going to be totally nailed down for a
> while. Not uncoincidentally, at least this is what works best for
> Mozilla's schedule. I can't speak for others.

Ekr, many thanks for this input. I fully agree to that we should try to 
finalize the gUM doc quickly, since it seems like that is where we can 
make best progress.

Before proposing the split 1 half-day gUM and 2 half-days webrtc Harald 
and I discussed back and forth. We had the hope that we should have 
sorted out a lot already by the f2f regarding gUM and that is the reason 
we ended up in the proposal of Dec 17th.

Of course we can change this, the only potential problem is if there is 
someone who is only active in the media-capture TF (and not in webrtc) 
who has objections (perhaps due to already booked flights).

Stefan

>
> Accordingly, here's what I suggest (based on a 4 hour session).
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Day 1:  API Style
> 0:30    Overview, hunt for scribe, etc. [chairs]
> 1:00    gUM: Overall API style (sync, async.) [Thomson]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/0043.html
>
> Objective: get decided.
> 1:00    gUM: Error reporting  [??]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Dec/0115.html
>
> Objective: get decided.
>
> 0:30    gUM: Device enumeration [Thomson]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/0046.html
>
> Objective: decide on direction
>
> 1:00    Settings API part I (overall style)   [Leithead]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/proposals/SettingsAPI_proposal_v6.html
>
> Objective: determine if this is how we want things to look
> overall. Especially relationship to constraints.
>
>
> Day 2:  API Details: Part I
> 1:30    Settings API part II (detailed settings)  [Leithead, Jennings]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/proposals/SettingsAPI_proposal_v6.html
>
> Objective: Work through each setting and determine:
>
> (a) Is this an appropriate setting?
> (b) Is this an appropriate defn. for the setting?
>
> Note: Jennings is here because he objected on the list to some
> of the details.
>
> 0:30    gUM + Identity [Rescorla, Thomson]
> Open issues with proposal from last F2F
> [EKR to produce a writeup shortly]
>
>
> 1:00    Recording API open issues [Barnett]
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/0159.html
>
> 1:00    WebRTC: what are the media stream mapping expectations?
> [Jennings (?)]
> - How much are the sender's streams reflected on the receiver?
> - What indicator (if any) from the sender is reflected in the SDP?
> - What are the implications in terms of media (especially synchronization):
>   + Separate tracks in the same stream
>   + Separate streams
>   + What about stream merging?
>          Note: this topic should go before the corresponding topic in
> RTCWEB,
> so may need to juggle agenda
>
> Day 2:   API Details: Part II
>
> 1:30    WebRTC: accepting and rejecting streams [??]
> - Can I indicate as answerer not to negotiate a stream?
>   (at SetRemote)?
>
> - How do I reject a stream I don't like
>   + At CreateAnswer?
>   + With a stream operation
>
> - Can I reject tracks not streams?
> - Can I apply individual preferences/constraints to streams?
>
> Note: will try to produce a message to the list describing these
> issues.
>
> 0:30    Session version and trickle ICE [Roach]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Dec/0069.html
>
> Objective: resolve this issue.
>
>
> 0:30    DTMF [Alvestrand]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Dec/0057.html
>
> Objective: get this finished
>
>
> 1:00    Stats [Alvestrand]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Dec/0013.html
>
> Objective: is this the right style?
>
>
> 0:30    Wrapup/next steps [Chairs]
>
>
> -Ekr
>
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 08:09:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:03 GMT