Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] TAG Review Request: RTCIceTransport (#304)

One question:  the explainer asserts that `RTCIceTransport` isn't useful by itself.  Is that because it essentially has an "internal" API that can be used by things like `RTCQuicTransport` but that isn't exposed to javascript users via the spec'd interface?  Is that, in turn, justified by what @martinthomson writes above: "we should not be enabling the creation of unencrypted and unauthenticated communications channels from the web"?  (At this point I'm at an inference on top of an inference, so I've probably gone wrong somewhere!)

On a side note, I'd note that the naming violates the [casing section](https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/#casing-rules) of the design principles doc, which says (although maybe it should be revised?):
> Repeated initialisms are particularly non-uniform throughout the platform. Infamous historical examples that violate the above rules are XMLHttpRequest and HTMLHtmlElement. Do not follow their example; instead always capitalize your initialisms, even if they are repeated.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/304#issuecomment-431571518