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

Re: Sorting possible technical issues into categories

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:19:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtJR=KHJ1np+xjyWempW88KtLtmxyLFYpY8zGpkrACvUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I have mentioned my concern for the shortcomings of the current API in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0102.htm<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0102.html>
It
looks like some additional API surface is needed to address my concerns (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0109.html ).
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> As part of the preliminary plan for moving forward (was part of the mail
> on poll result [7]), it was said that the WG will continue to work on the
> items that have been raised as possible technical issues (in [1]).
>
> The chairs have made an initial attempt on sorting those items into
> categories ("Will not do", "Not a question for this WG", "Being addressed",
> "Needs to be addressed", "Needs further discussion", "Needs to be more
> clearly described"), see below, to facilitate moving forward.
>
> Let us know if you think this break down makes sense or not, and any other
> feedback you have!
>
> Stefan for the chairs.
>
> *Will not do*
> -------------
> - *Remove SDP*: the poll was clear
>
> *Not a question for this WG*
> ----------------------------
> - *H.264 SVC support*: IETF matter
>
> - *Testing of continued connection liveness*: IETF matter
>
> - *Interoperability with varying ICE and ICE-like agents*: IETF matter
>
> *Being addressed*
> -----------------
> - *Learn what ICE candidates are in use*: this is part of the proposed
> stats report
>
> - *Pausing and muting of streams*: there is already enable/disable on
> tracks available [3], and there has recently been a proposal to move this
> functionality to the consumer (e.g. PeerConnection) [2].
>
> - *Expose additional ICE state:*, *Remove offer/answer*, *Description of
> state/behavior is currently incomplete*, *Document how the different state
> machines interact*: The discussion of states for PeerConnection, including
> SDP exchanges, is ongoing
>
> - *Are MediaStreams mutable objects?*: According to [3] they are (but
> there is a recent proposal that a MediaStream being received from a peer
> shall not be mutable [4])
>
> *Needs to be addressed*
> ----------------------
> - *Rollback of offers*
>
> - *Provide congestion feedback API for flows*, *Bandwidth allocation*,
> *Bandwidth estimation feedback* (there is a bug filed related to this [5];
> [4] proposed an API surface that might suitable; BW allocation is perhaps
> mostly and IETF matter)
>
> *Needs further discussion*
> --------------------------
> - *DTMF onTone event*: unclear if there is consensus for supporting this
> feature, is currently not covered by use-case document [6])
>
> - *Set Security Description*: need the discussion in IETF to finalize first
>
> - *Learning of network change events*: need to discuss the role of app and
> the role of the UA
> - *Priority allocation*: need further discussion
>
> - *API for discovering capabilities* (this has to some extent been
> discussed in the Media Capture TF)
>
> *Needs to be more clearly described*
> ------------------------------**------
> - *Control connection establishment based on certificate*
>
> - *Split SDP between PeerConnection and MediaStream*
>
> - *Serialization of duplicated tracks*
>
> - *Programmatic description of described streams*
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webrtc/2012Aug/**
> 0194.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Aug/0194.html>
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-media-capture/**
> 2012Aug/0029.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Aug/0029.html>
>
> [3] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/**editor/getusermedia.html<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html>
>
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/**
> 0025.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0025.html>
>
> [5] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861>
> [6] http://datatracker.ietf.org/**doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-**
> cases-and-requirements/<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements/>
> [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/**
> 0098.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0098.html>
>
>
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 16:19:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 September 2012 16:19:35 GMT