Re: A small proposal to cleanup DataChannel construction.

Yes, we feel our qualms are legitimate or we would not have brought it up.

Frankly, I am not all that excited about debating the issue in the WG, for
a variety of reasons. I thought if we could get these issues resolved here
"quickly" then great, but it doesn't sounds like that is going to happen in
the near term.

*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> |
*Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/>* |
1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *


On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:

> If it's a legitimate shortcoming of the 1.0 spec, then it's legitimate
> work to fix it, and it wouldn't be disrupting the 1.0 work.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote:
>
>> We decided early on that we would not intentionally disrupt the work
>> being done in the WG, looks like we may just have to live with the
>> ambiguity for the time being.
>>
>> *Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/>* |
>> 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> If there are really problems with the 1.0 spec, let's try bringing them
>>> up in the WG first before spending lots of time on it  here.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure if I follow Peter.
>>>>
>>>> If the 1.0 spec is not clear what the harm in clarifying here? Worst
>>>> case is that the CG has something we can run with in the near term and the
>>>> WG can reference that work when the debate arises there.
>>>>
>>>> *Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/>* |
>>>> 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
>>>> <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the 1.0 spec is ambiguous, we need to resolve it there.  If we
>>>>> resolve it here independently and then it gets resolved there later in a
>>>>> different way, that would not be fun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [RR]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I looked at this spec and that's where my ambiguity came from. I
>>>>>> don't think that spec defines all the behaviours to resolve the
>>>>>> ambiguities. Do you have another source?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was reading:
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [/RR]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
>>>>>>  April 23, 2014 at 6:17 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  [RR] I'm fine with the rules so long as they are clear an
>>>>>>> unambiguous. Who would have the answers to clarify some of these ambiguous
>>>>>>> situations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​To answer that, I would go read the latest spec.​
>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>