Agenda, June 25 2015

First off: I won't be there.
Turns out I'm sitting on a plane while you're talking. Stuff happens. Sorry.

Highest priority for the week: Getting out a new getusermedia draft, so
that Dom can send out the Last Call responses we have prepared (the ones
that are ready, that is).

Media capture and streams
-------------------------------------
Pull requests:
- #171 referring to HTML 5.1 - suggest this is Good Enough now.
- #181 Remove text about firing event handles - Adam, is it important
enough that we should do this after #194 is done, but before the new
editors' draft?
- #194 Overconstrainederror - suggest we merge. Only Domenic is capable
of reviewing this at the moment (just about).


Issues:
- #118 Practical algorithm - Cullen reopened it. I asked him to take it
to the list. No action yet.
- #127 lack of timeout - still icebox
- #161 Remove direct assigment - see PR #171
- #162 MediaStreamError - see PR #194
- # 176 constrainable pattern shold pass an IDL validator - Adam?
- #189 getUserMedia({}) should be a TypeError
- #191 Support zoom - No
- #192 Support setting focus - No
- #193 Adaptive frame rate
- #196 Spec not tamper proof
- #197 Channel count - NOTE: IPR issue, specific proposal from
non-WG-member. Suggest ask proposer to join (simplest).
- #198 Capabilities discovery via EnumerateDevices() - as above.

Webrtc-PC
--------------
Pull requests: 11

Many of these have the problem of proposer not responding.

- #29 mediadiscarded
- #229 Removing optionality
- #235 Modernize getStats - I think this is OK
- #236 Replace operations array with chain - Adam?
- #237 ReplaceTrack with open issue
- #238 Use HTTPS - think we should merge this, or close and do
search/replace (no response to whitespace complaint)
- #239 tidy target - Adam/Dan, is this useful?
- #240 Move certificate management section - sure, why not?
- #241 Lots of goodies (DTLStransport, ICEtransport)
- #242 Remove syntax error - dom is most often right
- #243 Mark candidate property required - overlap with #229?

Bugs: 32

We really need to define the icebox for non-1.0 items.... if we have
time, should we instead discuss how to get 1.0 and "the next version" split?

(Since I won't be there, leaving decision to my co-chairs)








-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 15:21:32 UTC