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

Re: First agenda proposal webrtc telco

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:37:25 +0200
Message-ID: <503A5ED5.2040107@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org

my view of the MS situation is that there may be 3 completely different 
situations in the group:

- There's really no desire among other members to pick this up (and a 
strong desire not to)
- There's a really strong desire among other members to pick this up
- There's enough doubt about it that we need to discuss further how to 
dispose of it

Until we actually talk about it, we do not know where we are; if we're 
already in one of the 2 first states, we don't have to discuss any more 
whether or not we pick this up; if we're in the 3rd state, I think 
you're right - we need a whole meeting to discuss it. But until we have 
that conversation, we haven't had that conversation.

I think 25 mins is enough to figure out something of where we are among 
the 3 states above (one subset of the first one is that there's a desire 
to pick some of the features of the proposal up for integration a little 
bit down the road, but keep the first steps on the road unchanged - I 
think that's what Justin's discussing with Martin just now).

But both devoting a whole meeting to a proposal we may not see any 
desire to discuss and not talking about the "elephant in the room" at 
all seemed wrong to me - so this proposed agenda is what we came up with.

On 08/26/2012 04:53 PM, Maire Reavy wrote:
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Maire
> 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 17:37:50 UTC

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