Re: ORTC CG vs WebRTC WG Issues

Hi Erik,

I understand and fully respect the decision made by the CG chairs, I 
would have probably done the same thing in your position. Convergence 
between WebRTC and ORTC is a major goal we should all be looking for.

Given said that, IMHO, the parts of the specs that needs a deep re-think 
and improvements are specially the ones shared with webrtc, that is: 
senders/receivers/parameters/capabilities.But given the current 
situation, and in order to not diverge from WebRTC specs, only minor 
cosmetic changes are allowed, which feels like adding hacks on top of 
hacks (at least for me). Moreover, it is event difficult to discuss some 
topics, because they have been already agreed elsewhere.

We thought that given the unmature state of ORTC (at least compared to 
webrtc, and in terms of available implementations) it would be much more 
easy to collaborate and propose new ideas to be incorporated into the spec.

Again, I am not challenging anything, and  we may just have to wait 
until we open an ORTC 2.0 and we don't have the constrains that we have now.

Best regards
Sergio
On 28/04/2016 1:05, Erik Lagerway wrote:
> Thanks Iñaki,
>
> I don't think anyone is trying to take on all the work in the CG 
> themselves, on the contrary, we need all the help we can get. We 
> deeply appreciate and value all contributions.
>
> The first ORTC objects were integrated into the 1.0 WebRTC spec back 
> in 2014, before they landed in the 1.0 spec we behaved a bit more 
> autonomously. We are long past that now and many of the ORTC objects 
> have been integrated into WebRTC 1.0. Now we have to consider the 
> implications when making changes that could adversely affect the 
> WebRTC spec. It's no longer "their spec", it's "our spec" as well.
>
> Once ORTC elements are integrated into the WG spec I don't think it 
> makes a lot of sense to rake them back and re-work them in the CG 
> without consideration of those in the WG.
>
> When thinking about new proposals for functionality or APIs that have 
> not been integrated into WebRTC 1.0, I think that is appropriate work 
> for the CG to take on, that's kinda why we started this CG in the 
> first place, right?
>
> Best regards,
> /Erik
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net 
> <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
>
>     2016-04-26 22:09 GMT+02:00 Erik Lagerway <elagerway@gmail.com
>     <mailto:elagerway@gmail.com>>:
>     > We (ORTC editors, spec authors, chairs) will not submit Issues
>     or PRs in the WG on behalf of another person or organization.
>
>     I can understand that the current purpose of ORTC is, in fact,
>     modeling a better API for WebRTC (2.0?). However, I don't understand
>     why CG members cannot propose changes directly into the ORTC CG.
>
>     Basically that means that, regardless I follow ORTC progress, I must
>     propose changes into the WebRTC WG and, if they are accepted there,
>     the ORTC editors would incorporate them into the ORTC spec.
>
>     No sense IMHO and, honestly, I'm totally lost regarding the purpose of
>     ORTC given that just a few ones can propose spec/API changes in there.
>
>     Anyhow, thanks a lot for your comment and clarification.
>
>     Best regards.
>
>
>
>     --
>     Iñaki Baz Castillo
>     <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>
>