W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

Re: First agenda proposal webrtc telco

From: Maire Reavy <mdr@reavy.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 10:53:46 -0400
Message-ID: <503A387A.7010401@reavy.org>
To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Hi Stefan,

I agree with Cullen's comments below.

My big concern (and my reason for sending this email) is that this 
agenda doesn't seem very helpful in terms of resolving the issues that 
are blocking implementation.  10 minutes isn't really enough to make 
true progress, so we'll end up just skimming over each issue and not 
resolving anything.

 From my perspective, the elephant in the room is the Microsoft 
proposal.  Having a total of 25 minutes allocated to it with only 10 
minutes for discussion can't possibly do anything to alleviate the 
uncertainty about whether this is a discussion the WG intends to 
entertain.  If we are to have a discussion about that proposal, we 
should instead allocate an entire session to it.

Alternately, if we aren't going to have a real discussion about the MS 
proposal, then we should prioritize the remaining 6 issues in terms of  
how much they are blocking implementation and devote enough time to the 
high priority ones to actually resolve them. *This* (discussing the 
remaining 6 issues that are blocking implementation in prioritized 
order) is what I would prefer to do for this Tuesday's telco.

The current agenda seems like a compromise that doesn't let us make 
enough real forward progress on anything.


On 8/21/2012 1:31 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. 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.
>>    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.
>>         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.
>>         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.
>>    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.
>> //Stefan for chairs
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2012 14:54:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:32 UTC