RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

>From: Robin Raymond [mailto:robin@hookflash.com] 
>Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 1:50 PM
>To: Martin Steinmann
>Cc: 'public-webrtc_w3.org'
>Subject: Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser
Implementers

> 

>
>Right, the current API is ill suited to support leading edge protocols. I
100% agree with you. That's why I'm proposing an alternative that allows for
>today's protocols but doesn't prohibit the future from happening too.

 

OK, so you would like to add a new use case that is important to you, but
not (yet) to most others.  If stated as such I would agree that this should
be a basis for a discussion, provided it does not completely derail the
existing process and timeline for the rest of us.

--martin

 


>
>And even though I didn't bring up the topic because I explicitly try not to
promote on these forums, Open Peer is "open". It's not official "standards
>track" via an official "standards body" but a open project like many other
open projects. As a reminder, XMPP did not start out in the standards >track
either when it first came out. Not every standard has its origins being
designed by a committee before being crowned a "standard".
>
>-Robin







 <mailto:martin@ezuce.com> Martin Steinmann

5 July, 2013 1:40 PM

>From: Robin Raymond [mailto:robin@hookflash.com] 
>Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 1:25 PM
>To: Martin Steinmann
>Cc: 'public-webrtc_w3.org'
>Subject: RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser
Implementers

> 

>
>We already have an API that is very much disagreed upon by those of us
actually trying to use it now!
>
>-Robin

. meaning for those implementing P2P and other proprietary protocols such as
Open Peer.  It should not be about browser to browser, but browser to any
and a standardization process like this is ill-suited to accommodate leading
edge experiments with new protocols.

--martin