Re: JSEP API changes - choosing a path forward

I believe the proposals are largely equivalent in functionality.  Although I have a moderate preference for the calling approach that Cullen's integration proposal uses, I could live with either one.

I would like for the authors of the proposals (Cullen, Adam, and Justin) to work together to develop a joint proposal.

-- dan

On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> 
> I'd like to discuss this topic at the next phone call - I don't think the issue is choosing one. I think the issue is discussing what we like about both and seeing if we can find a way to have our cake and eat it too. 
> 
> 
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 17:15 , Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
>> List,
>> 
>> we now have two member contributions suggesting changes to the PeerConnection API in order to align with the JSEP direction suggested in the IETF:
>> 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Mar/0049.html (from Adam)
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Mar/0064.html (from Cullen)
>> 
>> In order to make quick progress, the chairs aim to call for the incorporation of one of these in the core document as soon as consensus is detected in the WG; if it's not obvious before what the
>> consensus is, the chairs aim to make a call one way or the other based on the list traffic up to ca March 30 (this is just after the IETF meeting, so people taking the opportunity for face-to-face discussion can report on those discussions here).
>> 
>> All list members who have reviewed both documents are encouraged to
>> state their opinion on the list.
>> 
>>                  Harald and Stefan
>> 
> 
> 

Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 07:57:13 UTC