Re: First agenda proposal webrtc telco

On 08/21/2012 07:31 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> bunch of points inline …
>
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:56 , Stefan Hakansson LK wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> this is the chair's first proposal for agenda items for the Tuesday
>> Aug 28 Telco. Please give us feedback!
>>
>> 1. Welcome, scribe 2. Approve minutes 3. MS’ CU-WebRTC proposal
>> Presentation Questions and comments
>
> Last I heard Google and Microsoft were working on some sort of joint
> proposal. I'd rather wait to see that before spending time on this so
> I'm not in favor of this being on the agenda yet.

Microsoft has pretty recently contributed an API proposal that is quite 
different from what the WG has developed so far. I think it would not be 
fair not to offer them a small part of our meeting to present it.

If there is a joint proposal, it would make even more sense to present 
that one.

> However, if it is
> going to be on the agenda, we need enough time to answer the
> questions that will come up. I imagine that means more or less a 10
> minute presentation filled by questions for a few hours.

Ideally, yes. However, we can't go on for hours, and I think having a 
short presentation followed by time for a few questions is better than 
nothing. I expect the discussion to continue on the list if there is 
interest.

>
>> 4. Milestones and progress plan Whether IdP API is part of V1
>> Whether Data Channel is part of V1
>
> I'm pretty shocked to see you proposing that we remove the spec all
> the things Firefox does that Chrome has not yet implemented. The WG
> has previously agreed to do these and I don't think that we are yet
> at the right time or place to start looking at things to remove from
> the spec. I'm sure at some point it will be the right time to ask the
> WG what can be removed but not yet - at that point I think the right
> thing to do will be to ask what is not needed and see what we can
> develop consensus to remove.  Needless to say I strongly object to
> these being on the agenda as I think the conversation is a waste of
> time at this point.

Noted. And for the record: it was not proposals to remove stuff from the 
spec, but rather opening for discussing if we could consider doing that 
to get a quicker path to V1 (and with some - maybe badly chosen - 
examples thrown in).

>
>
>> Whether any other major mods to the specs are needed
>
> Yes, many major changes to the spec are needed. The WG has not even
> started dealing with error handling in any serious way. When and how
> many of the vents happened is still pretty much undefined.

Agree.

>
>> Whether dates are realistic, given resolution of the items above
>
> It's not even worth discussing the dates when the first thing on the
> agenda is if we should through out all the work we have done so far.

I agree to that changing fundamentally from what the WG has done so far 
would change the time line significantly. But I think we as a group must 
be able to allow for other proposals to come in, and have those 
considered, and still continue working on what is currently ongoing. If 
the new proposal(s) end up changing things a lot, then the time line 
changes a lot, but we must still be able to set up milestones that apply 
given that we don't change significantly.

If we can't do that then we would either have to say that "no new 
proposals/ideas can be considered" - which would be a shame because 
something really good might come in - or say that "as soon as there is a 
different proposal contributed we abandon all mile stones set until the 
discussion has settled". Neither would be good.

>
>
>> 5. Stats API - accept to include in spec
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Jun/0239.html
>
>>
> yes should be on agenda
>
>> 6. IdP - possibly
>
> yes should be on agenda
>
>>
>> 7. DTMF API - accept to move to PC and use 4-arg form
>
> yes should be on agenda
>
>> 8. JS API for interacting with congestion control
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861
>
> yes should be on agenda
>
>> 9. ICE state machine reporting up state (Cullen)
>
> I will send a summary of where we are on this to the list before the
> meeting. I'd rather see this higher up the agenda as I think this is
> something we need to sort out soon and I'm afraid we will not get to
> it on this call.

Great. We'll consider moving it up!

>
>
>>
>> //Stefan for chairs
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 18:05:41 UTC