W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Goals of this work (Re: Poll for preferred API alternative)

From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:55:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCOMqUbSTD2=YzYM8MDu8qPhiYZx78AEtBk42r8MQj4dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Cc: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Matthew Kaufman
<matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:
> Yes, I believe that *all* of the use cases presented in the use case document >(and any new ones that we come up with) should be addressed by the W3C API > and IETF protocols with equal priority.

This would not be in-line with the IETF charter for the working group
with which this work is coordinated.  The relative priority is made
clear in point 9:

 9.  The group will consider options for interworking with legacy VoIP
        equipment.

Contrast this with the "Define X" style for those which are related to
the main work.  The main work in the IETF charter notes the browser
case as a primary use case as well:

     There is a desire to standardize the basis for such
    communication so that interoperable communication can be established
    between any compatible browsers. The goal is to enable innovation on
    top of a set of basic components.  One core component is to enable
    real-time media like audio and video, a second is to enable data
    transfer directly between clients.

I'm always pleased to see anyone striving for inter-working, and I
heartily agree that the other use cases are valid.  But the charter of
the IETF group is pretty clear on which is primary, and I believe that
the agreement of the IETF and W3C to work on this together was based
on that same premise.

regards,

Ted Hardie
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 23:55:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 23:55:57 GMT