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

Re: First agenda proposal webrtc telco

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:30:21 +0200
Message-ID: <503A6B3D.2030806@ericsson.com>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Hi Maire,

thanks for the feedback.

Harald responded to the MS API part of the agenda exactly as I was going 
to, so I'll skip commenting that part.

But I want to pick up the other part of your message: issues that block 
implementation. Such info is extremely  valuable and can really help 
moving the spec in the right direction.

I think it would be very valuable if you could share with the WG the 
list of issues that block implementation.

It is a correct observation that we're squeezing in many topics, and 
give short time to each of them. In part this comes from feedback given 
(by amongst others Mozilla) when the WG charter was out for AC review 
saying that they prefer no telcos, but to do all discussion on the list. 
So we've had a habit of quite few telcos, and at the telcos more touch 
on the topics but moving the in depth discussion to the list.

Perhaps we should change this; instead have more frequent telcos with 
fewer topic which we cover in depth. I would certainly be open for that 
if the WG (and my co-chair) thinks it is a good idea. And it would be 
natural to focus on covering the issues (in priority order) that block 
implementation in those meetings.

Best regards,

On 08/26/2012 07:37 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Maire,
> 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 18:30:49 UTC

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