Re: Proposed Charter Changes

The bulk of the changes are as follows, template from Dom, some from Ekr,
some from Tim, some from *me *+ removed the Liaison requirement.

As the name implies, WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers
is to be considered as a first version of APIs for real-time communication.
The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
Browsers reaches Candidate Recommendation, consider working on a new
set of *object-oriented
APIs for real-time communication to produce an object-oriented
specification to follow 1.0*. The activities in the ORTC (Object Real-time
Communications) Community Group indicate that there is interest in a new
set of APIs. As part of this consideration, the group will reevaluate its
deliverables and milestones, and may reconsider its scope.

In developing an *Object API*, the WG will adhere to the following
principles.
- Backwards-compatibility: applications which run in *WebRTC 1.0* will
continue to function with the* Object API*.
- Standalone operation: The new *Object API*s will be sufficiently complete
as to prevent the need for the programmer to switch between
object-orientated and 1.0 SDP styles in order to complete common tasks.
- Feature independence: New features may be introduced in the
object-oriented API that are not accessible in the documented *1.0 API* or
that are only added to the *1.0 SDP API* in future versions.

*The WG will make efforts to align on API methodologies and nomenclature
with the ORCT CG when contemplating design of similar APIs in the WG. This
may include scheduled design meetings with relevant WG and CG stakeholders
to foster further convergence of the APIs.*

---

Your comments around "Object" are noted, also heard that "low-level" and
"NG" are not working for some as well, so not sure what to do there.



/Erik

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> Can you put up a link to a github diff? It's hard to tell which parts are
> new here.
>
> I am not a fan of the "Object" / "1.0 SDP" terminology. Most of the
> objects already exist (or will exist) in 1.0, so calling the NG thing
> "Object" seems inaccurate at best.
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> I look forward to seeing the discussion on the Hookflash proposal and I
>> need to think about about it more but my first reaction is that looks like
>> something that I could live with and might be OK to most the WG.
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 30, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Based on concerns raised and after speaking to several WG and CG
>> participants, I am proposing the following changes:
>> >
>> > - removed liaison requirement
>> > - added some copy around getting the groups working together
>> > - changed "low-level" to Object
>> > - changed "high-level" to 1.0 SDP
>> >
>> > I believe this addresses most of the concerns and feels like a common
>> ground we can start from, the proposal in its entirety is attached.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Erik
>> >
>>
>>
>