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

RE: Poll for preferred API alternative

From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:28:19 +0200
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F3D4ABD6AB47084B84337CF4F3446A464BF1651C6A@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Hakansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: den 29 augusti 2012 14:30
> To: public-webrtc@w3.org
> Subject: Poll for preferred API alternative
---snip---
> 
> The two alternatives, as the chairs see them, are the following:
> 
> 1) Continue with a design based on the PeerConnection object, 
> using SDP as part of the API, roughly in the style of the 
> current API description.
> 2) Remove the PeerConnection object and all use of SDP from 
> the API, and pursue an API roughly in the style of 
> Microsoft's CU-WebRTC proposal.
> 
> In order to make this call, we're calling for the WG 
> participants to make their opinion known, by indicating one 
> of three alternative opinions:
> 
> 1) The group should continue with a design based on the 
> PeerConnection object, using SDP as part of the API.
> 2) The group should remove the PeerConnection and all use of 
> SDP from the API, and pursue a design based on the CU-WebRTC proposal.
> 3) This participant does not have enough information to state 
> an opinion at this time.

MS/Skype has triggered a very important discussion in an area much
discussed already, but where more careful though and work in both w3c and ietf is
needed.

My vote is on "1" and with the hope that we as a group including Microsoft will find ways to solve SDP and O/A challenges, securing W3C and IETF coordination.

best regards
Göran 



> 
> The chairs will make the result of the opinion tally public 
> after the end date.
> 
> If this call results in a clear preponderance for one of the 
> alternatives, the WG chairs will take that as direction - if 
> the last alternative has a clear preponderance, the WG chairs 
> will direct the WG pursue further discussion of this topic 
> only, putting all other work on hold until this is resolved; 
> in the two other cases, the chairs will direct the WG pursue 
> the chosen design option, and leave the other to others to 
> follow up if they wish, but not drive it further in the WG.
> 
> This is not a vote - it is a tallying of opinions. If a 
> preponderance of preference is clear, the chairs will ask the 
> WG if it agrees that a consensus exists to proceed based on 
> that preference.
> 
> Please state your opinion before Friday, Sept 7, and 
> communicate this to the chairs. Mail to the list is an 
> acceptable means of communicating your opinion.
> 
> Stefan for the chairs
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 13:28:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 September 2012 13:28:45 GMT