Re: A small proposal to cleanup DataChannel construction.

If it's a legitimate shortcoming of the 1.0 spec, then it's legitimate work
to fix it, and it wouldn't be disrupting the 1.0 work.


On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote:

> We decided early on that we would not intentionally disrupt the work being
> done in the WG, looks like we may just have to live with the ambiguity for
> the time being.
>
> *Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/>* |
> 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:
>
>> If there are really problems with the 1.0 spec, let's try bringing them
>> up in the WG first before spending lots of time on it  here.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure if I follow Peter.
>>>
>>> If the 1.0 spec is not clear what the harm in clarifying here? Worst
>>> case is that the CG has something we can run with in the near term and the
>>> WG can reference that work when the debate arises there.
>>>
>>> *Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/>* |
>>> 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
>>> <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the 1.0 spec is ambiguous, we need to resolve it there.  If we
>>>> resolve it here independently and then it gets resolved there later in a
>>>> different way, that would not be fun.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [RR]
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked at this spec and that's where my ambiguity came from. I don't
>>>>> think that spec defines all the behaviours to resolve the ambiguities. Do
>>>>> you have another source?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was reading:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/
>>>>>
>>>>> [/RR]
>>>>>
>>>>>   Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
>>>>>  April 23, 2014 at 6:17 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>  [RR] I'm fine with the rules so long as they are clear an
>>>>>> unambiguous. Who would have the answers to clarify some of these ambiguous
>>>>>> situations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ​To answer that, I would go read the latest spec.​
>>>>> ​
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>