Re: Agenda, June 25 2015

Present: Adam, Dan, Erik, Peter, Stefan

First: Welcome to Erik!!

Process: we should add a label saying something like "waiting for input 
from proposer" or something similar, because a lot of the PRs and Issues 
are waiting for input.

On 24/06/15 17:21, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 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).

Let's go ahead and release a new editors draft. Complete set of changes 
for fixing errors will take some time, so let's release without that, 
and soon follow up with the error stuff.

Adam will merge #171 with a Note saying this is the first iteration, and 
we'll review over weekend (including Cullen), and release a dated 
version Monday.

Adam creates the dated version Monday if we're OK.

> Media capture and streams
> -------------------------------------
> Pull requests:
> - #171 referring to HTML 5.1 - suggest this is Good Enough now.

Let's put it in, but make it clear that there is work to be done in a 
note. Adam to merge and add the note (see above).

> - #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?

Let's wait for the error stuff to land. Perhaps split this PR into two 
to not depend on other stuff.

> - #194 Overconstrainederror - suggest we merge. Only Domenic is capable
> of reviewing this at the moment (just about).

Let's merge this (after we get the dated one out) and ask for comments. 
Stefan to make a comment in the PR and ask Dominic and Allen to review.

#199: Adam has commented. Ended event use MediaSteamErrorEvent 
structure, but what to if we remove it? We should not combine the two 
things, ended event should not be shared with addTrack/removeTrack 
event. Dan to rewrite (perhaps make a new PR).

#200: Merged.

> 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
To be closed by Adam once merged #171
> - #162 MediaStreamError - see PR #194
In progress
> - # 176 constrainable pattern shold pass an IDL validator - Adam?
In progress, Adam looking into this.
> - #189 getUserMedia({}) should be a TypeError
More discussion needed - Adam to respond to Jan-Ivar's list mail
> - #191 Support zoom - No
Stefan will comment and close Issue.
> - #192 Support setting focus - No
Stefan will comment "make an extension spec"
> - #193 Adaptive frame rate
> - #196 Spec not tamper proof
Closed - fixed by PR
> - #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.

#201 Needs input from list

> Webrtc-PC
> --------------
> Pull requests: 11
> Many of these have the problem of proposer not responding.
> - #29 mediadiscarded

Peter has reviewed current state now, will work on it.

> - #229 Removing optionality

Merged already.

> - #235 Modernize getStats - I think this is OK


> - #236 Replace operations array with chain - Adam?

Adam not happy with the language that is not harmonized with resp of 
document. In progress, more work needed e.g. when type checking is done.

> - #237 ReplaceTrack with open issue

No update from Jan-Ivar.

> - #238 Use HTTPS - think we should merge this, or close and do
> search/replace (no response to whitespace complaint)

Assigned to Peter.

> - #239 tidy target - Adam/Dan, is this useful?


> - #240 Move certificate management section - sure, why not?

Assigned to Peter.

> - #241 Lots of goodies (DTLStransport, ICEtransport)

More discussion needed.

> - #242 Remove syntax error - dom is most often right

Needs discussion.

> - #243 Mark candidate property required - overlap with #229?


> Bugs: 32

Did not get there.

> 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?

Hopefully with a "next version" on the radar screen it will be easier to 
close 1.0.

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

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 15:17:21 UTC