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

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

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:22:18 +0200
Message-ID: <5049929A.2090406@ericsson.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 09/06/2012 10:33 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> I tried to make this point on the IRC channel of the last call, but
> clearly it must be made again.
>
> There is nothing in my reading of the use cases that makes the
> "browser-to-browser" use case *any more or less important than the
> other use cases*.

You're right, there is no such distinction in the use-case document. 
When writing what you quote below ("the main target for this work is the 
browser-browser case.") I had the charters of the IETF rtcweb and this 
(webrtc) WG in mind.

The part "I think it is OK if the descriptions must be manipulated for
interop (with non-browser end-points) cases" is of course just my 
personal opinion which I hope was made clear from the part "I think".

Stefan

>
> Just because we can come up with something with an SDP-like API that
> follows SDP Offer/Answer-like semantics and has ICE-like NAT
> traversal and DTLS-SRTP-like security does not in fact mean that we
> will support any of the other (not "browser-to-browser") use cases.
> In fact, supporting these cases will become particularly difficult if
> the SDP diverges, the O/A semantics diverge (as they have already),
> or the ICE implementation does not have the flexibility to
> interoperate with pre-final ICE implementations and/or lightweight
> consent-only gateways. This is precisely what the Microsoft document
> is talking about when we raise concerns about interoperability. Never
> mind, of course, that it will take several iterations just to get the
> SDP actually compatible between two vendor's browsers, if history is
> any guide.
>
> If you can point me to a specific reference that "the main target for
> this work is the browser-browser case", please do so. Otherwise, I
> suggest that we work on specifications that make it as easy as
> possible to implement *all* of the use cases, rather than do what the
> current specification does which is to make browser-to-browser cases
> easier *at the expense of* the other use cases.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Hakansson LK
> [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, September
> 06, 2012 11:17 AM To: public-webrtc@w3.org Subject: Re: Poll for
> preferred API alternative
>
> ... I think it is OK if the descriptions must be manipulated for
> interop (with non-browser end-points) cases; after all, the main
> target for this work is the browser-browser case. ...
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 06:22:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 September 2012 06:22:47 GMT