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

RE: Poll for preferred API alternative

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:26:44 -0700
Message-ID: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD8106A9810E@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
To: "Stefan Hakansson LK" <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I vote for 1.  I don't think that a compelling enough argument has been
given to justify the delay that would be involved in switching to

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Hakansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:30 AM
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Poll for preferred API alternative

The discussions of Aug 28 showed that there are people with differing
opinions on the structure of the API this WG should design.

Most of the work in front of this group currently is dependent on a
basic decision between those two approaches - the issues to be resolved
(for example congestion control and RTP stream mapping) are in many
cases present in both proposals, but the API specifications that need to
be developed look a lot different.

It is not efficient use of the group's time to work out detailed,
implementable proposals that then are thrown away because of a later
decision - nor is it a working environment conducive to inspiring

The two alternatives, as the chairs see them, are the following:

1) Continue with a design based on the PeerConnection object, using SDP
as part of the API, roughly in the style of the current API description.
2) Remove the PeerConnection object and all use of SDP from the API, and
pursue an API roughly in the style of Microsoft's CU-WebRTC proposal.

In order to make this call, we're calling for the WG participants to
make their opinion known, by indicating one of three alternative

1) The group should continue with a design based on the PeerConnection
object, using SDP as part of the API.
2) The group should remove the PeerConnection and all use of SDP from
the API, and pursue a design based on the CU-WebRTC proposal.
3) This participant does not have enough information to state an opinion
at this time.

The chairs will make the result of the opinion tally public after the
end date.

If this call results in a clear preponderance for one of the
alternatives, the WG chairs will take that as direction - if the last
alternative has a clear preponderance, the WG chairs will direct the WG
pursue further discussion of this topic only, putting all other work on
hold until this is resolved; in the two other cases, the chairs will
direct the WG pursue the chosen design option, and leave the other to
others to follow up if they wish, but not drive it further in the WG.

This is not a vote - it is a tallying of opinions. If a preponderance of
preference is clear, the chairs will ask the WG if it agrees that a
consensus exists to proceed based on that preference.

Please state your opinion before Friday, Sept 7, and communicate this to
the chairs. Mail to the list is an acceptable means of communicating
your opinion.

Stefan for the chairs
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 16:26:36 UTC

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